Allies, Changing attitudes, Doctrine/Theology, Faith/Practice, Marriage Equality, Reconciliation work, Scripture, Self-acceptance, Sexuality issues, Spirituality, Uncategorized

What Words Can’t Define

by Thomas Montgomery • August 31, 2014 • 7 Comments

Mormons, like most Christian’s, in pursuit of greater spiritual understanding, pursue Christ’s words in scripture. Who’s words, on any given subject, are more authoritative than those of the Savior himself? Even more notable are subjects on which Christ never spoke directly, like homosexuality. Why would Christ never speak on a subject that impacts the lives of millions of God’s children worldwide?

In the LDS Church, faithful Mormon’s look to the Proclamation on the Family to establish an undeviating standard for all. In connecting the Proclamation to Christ’s words, we can look to Matthew 19:5-6 where Christ says, “For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.”

This seems very clear. Christ has reiterated the standard that all should be married (traditionally). But is establishing a standard the same as issuing a commandment that is universal to all? Christ continues on the subject of marriage (Matthew 19:8-9), “He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. And I say unto you, Whosever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.”

There are a few very important points to draw from Christ’s words that are relevant today:
1) Moses (the living prophet at the time) established different laws and policies regarding marriage than what was established in the beginning.
2) At least on two points today, we do not follow Christ’s statements regarding marriage fully. People are allowed to divorce for reasons other than fornication and women are allowed to marry again even if they have been divorced.
So our modern interpretation of marriage and scripture has changed over time even as it has been applied and understood by prophets and apostles in the past.

What is very intriguing is that Christ was not done talking about marriage and relationships.

First qualifier, “All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given.” This seems to indicate that what is to follow is not for everyone.

“For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother’s womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake.”

Final qualifier, “He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.” (Matthew 19:11-12)

Wow. That might seem like a bizarre statement out of left field given the context. Wasn’t Christ just speaking about marriage? And what is a eunuch? And why is he talking about it at this point in the conversation? And why does Christ seem to point out that this section will only selectively apply? Perhaps he is indicating that only a certain number of people will understand what he is saying much like a parable.

Christ could have just as easily said, “I just mentioned an exception to marriage regarding divorce, but there is one more subject that is really so complex that there just aren’t words to define it.” How do you explain a concept so complex in its many facets that the current language doesn’t even have words for it?

So Christ begins and ends with a qualifier that in essence says, “What I am saying now is not for everyone. Some of you will understand what I am saying. I am talking about the standard I just gave you that all should marry (traditionally). What I am saying is there are those to whom that standard of marriage does not apply (At least not in the same way.)”

Granted, this is my interpretation. After doing some research, I found that the Hebrew word that originally conveyed the concept of what we today refer to as “homosexual” is the word ‫סריס‬ (saris), commonly translated “eunuch”. In Christ’s time, a eunuch was a man who cannot or will not have sex with a woman. Sometimes a eunuch is a man who also (by the modern definition of the term) may have been castrated.

In modern language, this could easily be someone who is gay. Or any letter of LGBTQ. In this context, Christ is saying that He knows that some people are born gay (“so born from their mother’s womb”), some become so through horrible life experience (I think castration would apply here) and others will pursue celibacy for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. The only word in the vocabulary of the day that Christ could use to describe someone who is gay was eunuch. But regardless of the means of how one became a eunuch, Christ is making a second exception to the standard he just defined (using the only words he had available to him).

His opening qualifier was, “All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given.” I believe it applied to the standard of marriage that immediately preceded those verses and applied to the people whom he defined (as best he could in the language of His day.) Some may view this as a convenient excuse to not live up to the Proclamation on the Family or other Church standards. However, this would not apply to heterosexual people. This is also not an excuse to endorse the stereotypes of the ‘gay lifestyle.’ What you could say is, “He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.” Otherwise, it doesn’t apply to you.

So, what else can we learn about how gay people were treated in the early Church? We can look to Acts 8. In this chapter, Philip is specifically directed to share the gospel with a foreign eunuch. Not only does he share the gospel, but he also baptizes the eunuch. There is no qualification regarding whether the eunuch was born gay, was castrated or had chosen celibacy. The only qualification given was, “If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest (be baptized). And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus is the Son of God.” Acts 8:37

Clearly eunuchs were allowed to be baptized and become members of the Church in New Testament times. However, there is no way any form of eunuch can fulfill the roles as defined in the Proclamation on the Family, or have a traditional marriage. Yet, the first principles and ordinances of the gospel still apply in full force and are fully available to them. Christ said as much using the only words He could.

Today, we are still struggling with concepts and ideas for which words can’t define. Many are more comfortable with the terms gay, lesbian, bi-sexual, transgender, etc…. Specifically in the LDS Church there are many who find the term ‘same-sex attracted’ more comfortable. Much of the difference lies in what those words mean to different people. To some, if they accept the labels included in LGBT, they feel like they are also accepting all of the negatives assigned to the stereotype of the ‘gay lifestyle’ which includes sleeping around, fornication, deviant behavior, drugs, alcohol and basically everything bad and evil in life. To others, accepting the term ‘same-sex attraction’ reduces their life experience of being gay to just its sexual component. It is also frequently used to indicate something a person is suffering from or struggling with (ie….’You are suffering from same-sex attraction.) Same-sex attraction is also viewed as a transient state or phase from which someone can recover or change.

So, even 2,000 years later, among professionals and laymen alike, we are still struggling to define the experience of being gay. In the Church we are still struggling to find an inclusive place for them. Because those who “cannot receive these sayings,” are left demanding that everyone else live the one standard they understand.

We have received a mandate from our Church leaders:
“But what is changing–and what NEEDS TO CHANGE (emphasis added)–is how Church members respond…when they encounter same-sex attraction in their own families, among other Church members, or elsewhere.” Elder Cook

In his most recent conference address, Elder Anderson said, “Everyone, independent of his or her decisions and beliefs, deserves our kindness and consideration. The Savior taught us to love not only our friends but also those who disagree with us-and even those who repudiate us. He said: “For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? … And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? The Prophet Joseph Smith warned us to “beware of self-righteousness” and to enlarge our hearts toward all men and women until we feel “to take them upon our shoulders.” In the gospel of Jesus Christ, there is no place for ridicule, bullying, or bigotry.”

The Church needs to change. I do not say this as a demand or with any requirement that the Church change the Law of Chastity or the Proclamation on the Family. But what we understand today and what the Lord can communicate to us today regarding homosexuality is changing. Our ability to understand and the words that we can use to define God’s will is rapidly evolving today. Today, we can ask the questions of God that could never be asked before and receive answers in language and ideas that we can understand. God has not changed, but we have.

Some look at the gospel in very narrow ways and theorize that we can only be saved in the fixed, defined ways that we know. But Jesus concluded his talk in Matthew 19:26 by saying, “With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.” Righteous gay men, lesbian women, and every other color of LGBT people exist. If your concepts of homosexuality only include what would be stereotypical of the ‘gay lifestyle’ or ‘prison culture,’ then I would invite you to learn who your LGBT brothers and sisters really are. It’s almost as if, “All men cannot receive this saying… except he who is willing to receive it.”

In the past three years, I have met some extraordinary LGBT people, some of whom I would consider spiritual giants. The complexity and diversity of their lives is beyond what I can understand and comprehend. In many ways , it mirrors the complexity and diversity common to all people. But the value of their souls and their ability to live righteous lives truly equals any I have found among the heterosexual majority.

In my wife’s most recent interview with our Stake President, he said to her, “Your testimony strengthens me, because I don’t have answers for you.” This is a progression from a place where he was more confident that he and the Church had those answers. To his credit, over the past few years he has honestly sought out every resource in the Church to help us.

Are we now humble enough to allow the Lord to teach us using the words and concepts that now exist to fully express his will for his LGBT children? Because until we are willing to acknowledge that the wisdom we have today is insufficient, and are willing to learn, we will not be able to ask the Lord the right questions.

Tom has also written:

← Why I Stay

What Manner of Men and Women Ought We to Be? →

7 comments for “What Words Can’t Define”

Comments are closed.

Share this:

Post navigation

7 comments for “What Words Can’t Define”