"The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, Because he hath anointed me To preach the gospel to the poor; He hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, To preach deliverance to the captives, And recovering of sight to the blind, To set at liberty them that are bruised, To preach [a season of acceptability from] the Lord." (Luke 4: 18,19)

After centuries of spiritual bondage, lesbians and gays are rising to reclaim the liberty that belongs to every disciple of Jesus Christ. Yet rare is the homosexual, bent beneath the frightful load of religious condemnation, who feels completely free. The "good news" of the Gospel is truly a message of renewal and of reconciliation with God. More often, it is presented by the modern Church as a joyless sentence from God upon homosexuals that withholds both the ability to reverse the orientation and the possibility of consummating it. This is out of harmony with the spirit of Christ's message. Well-acquainted with the ideological tyranny which established religions are wont to exercise, Jesus gave lesbians, gays, and all of us a valuable piece of advice. ". . . Ye shall know the truth," he said, "and the truth shall make you free." (John 8:32)

The purpose of this study is to help all interested Latter-Day Saints be free of certain misconceptions regarding the Sacred Writ and same-sexual love. It is not a search for permission to be homosexual. It is rather an attempt to save scriptural authority from the diminishment it must necessarily suffer as long as it is made to condemn that which is not actually under condemnation. The question to be considered here is whether the Scriptures are not better fulfilled; the universality of the Gospel perfected; and God glorified by the Church's acceptance of a legitimate sexual minority.

An Analysis of The Principal References to Homosexuality in the Bible

My belief and my fundamental assumption is that Scripture, correctly translated and interpreted, speaks with divine authority on the subjects it addresses. Truth is eternal; changeless, but, our perception of it is in constant flux. Our understanding is continuously evolving. The task before us is to read the meaning of the Scriptures in a spirit which is more consistent with the age that produced them and less through the filter of our own prejudices. This cannot be done without some appreciation of social and political situations of the past. It is also requisite to examine the language of the translation and of the original (where possible) in order to determine precisely what is being said and what is not.

We cannot discount the importance of an historical-critical (hermeneutical) approach to the Scriptures without risking failure because any interpretation which ignores historical context is certain to be married to our own thinking on the subject. We need at the same time, to use our powers of reason, fairness, and love to uncover the larger moral meaning in any specific historical pronouncement. Scripture has often been used to justify the absurd or immoral ideas of a particular generation, e.g., that the earth is flat and has four corners (Revelation 7:1), or that slavery is divinely sanctioned (Ephesians 6:5-9), etc.

Were it not for the tradition of anti-homosexuality in our time, few people would seriously consider a case against a universal phenomenon of nature based upon what little the Scriptures say. I do not believe that they even address the purer phenomenon of homosexuality apart from such things as male cultic prostitution, common prostitution or phallic aggression. Latter-day Scripture; the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price ignore homosexuality altogether. In the thousand years of history covered by the Book of Mormon—a history which includes three distinct migrations of people from the Middle East-how could homosexual practice have been unknown? How can the Doctrine and Covenants, written for the Church in our time, fail to identify a sin of its supposed magnitude? The significance of this silence has yet to be given due importance in LDS theology. This leaves only the Bible with its familiar problems of translation and interpretation as the sole source of indictment.

The Old Testament

The Bible would be enough if it condemned homosexuality as it is presently defined, but it seems to be addressing a different set of practices which relate to it only marginally or not at all. Certainly the prophets were acquainted with homosexuality. Raphael Patai writes of its familiar place in the domestic life of the Hebrews (Patai p. 169). In the Prophetic books of the Old Testament, i.e. those written by the prophets themselves (and possibly their close disciples), no mention or condemnation of homosexual persons or acts is made (Edwards p. 64). A general condemnation of homosexuality is, therefore, out of character with Prophetic literature.

The Hebrew word qadesh and its plural qadeshim are used in the Priestly literature of the Old Testament no more than six times and always in connection with idolatry (Deuteronomy 17:23; 1 Kings 14:24; 15:12; 22:46; 2 Kings 23:7; Job 36:14). Incorrectly translated "sodomite/s" in the King James Version, the word actually refers to male cult prostitutes. Today it is rather widely understood that a qadesh was a male devotee of a pagan religion who participated in sexual fertility rites, probably with other male worshippers. Some of the qadeshim were voluntarily castrated, making ritual sex with them more efficacious than with a female cult prostitute because of the sacrifice involved. These sacred male prostitutes were common in antiquity, as were their female counterparts, the qadeshoth (rendered "whores" in the KJV). They were part and parcel of the plague of idolatry upon the ancient world. The primary objection was to the idolatry expressed in cultic homosexual and heterosexual ritual (Deuteronomy 23:17-18). The denigration of idolatry is certainly a pervasive theme of the Old Testament.

In the book of Leviticus, two verses proscribe male homosexual acts both cultic and domestic:

"Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind: it is an abomination." (Lev. 18:22)
"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." (Lev. 20:13)

These texts also belong to the Priestly tradition. Leviticus was not composed by Moses and did not reach its final form until after 539 B.C., the end of the Babylonian exile. While Moses provided the Holiness Code upon which Leviticus is based, the book, as we know it, was elaborated by reforming priests and did not emerge until six centuries later (New Jerusalem Bible p. 14). The exact words of these proscriptions, with their broad condemnation of male same-sex intercourse, definitely reflect the cultural concerns of post-exilic Judaism rather than those of the pre-exilic Hebrews.

It is well known that captive Israel was influenced in legislative matters by the conquering nation (New Jerusalem Bible p. 13). When the Persians conquered the Babylonians in 539 B.C., Israel was granted some political and religious freedoms, but domestic homosexuality would not have fared well on account of the severity of the Zoroastrian condemnation of it. Zoroastrianism was a major feature of Persian religion. Cyrus I is believed to have been a Zoroastrian. A passage on homosexual acts in the Vendidad, a book of their scripture, bears an uncanny resemblance to the Leviticus texts-or is it the other way around?-suggesting a strong foreign influence (Horner pp. 78-81).

Same-sex activity between females is not forbidden in Leviticus or any other place in the Bible. (Romans 1:26-27 takes a dim view of the behavior of certain women (and men) but does not actually prohibit same-sexual activity for Christians of either sex.) Possibly, the erotic activities of women would have been of little consequence to the Hebrew male, provided, of course, they did not take place with another male. I believe this omission reveals more than androcentrism, or, male supremacy. To me, it argues rather strongly in favor of the text having undergone a mutation. The Hebrew mind always conceives its ideas in binary, that is, in pairs which are either analogous or complementary. If the original intent of the source material for this text was to outlaw homosexuality generally, where is the symmetrical reference to lesbianism? If, however, the intent was to forbid a man's recourse to cultic prostitution, as in Deuteronomy 23:17-18, the omission of women makes sense. The patronage of cult prostitutes of either sex was a male activity. No Hebrew female would have had the freedom or the mobility to patronize cult prostitutes, so, a parallel situation could not have existed.

Notable also in the Leviticus texts is the use of the word "abomination," or in Hebrew, to'ebah. George Edwards believes that the Hebrew word is a technical term for a sin of idolatry (Edwards p. 51). The underlying theme of idolatry is borne out by an examination of the context of 18:22. It is preceded by a condemnation of child sacrifice to the deity Molech (v. 21) and followed by a prohibition against bestiality (v. 23) which was also connected with idolatrous worship, viz., the Egyptian ram cult.

For these reasons it is questionable whether Moses originally condemned anything but male cultic prostitution in these sections of the code. This would be more consistent with the Prophetic tradition. Even if he intended the statutes exactly as we have them, we believe that Mosaic Law was fulfilled in Christ.

If we insist on applying portions of the Law which pertain to homosexual acts, then, logically, we are obligated to resurrect the whole of it, including burnt offerings (Lev. 1-7), circumcision (Lev. 12:3), levirate marriage (the brother-in-law of a childless widow must have intercourse with her "to raise up seed") (Deut. 25:5-10), the prohibition of heterosexual intercourse during menses (Lev.15:24; 18:19), the death penalty for cursing a father or mother (Lev.20:9), and other various Levitical prohibitions against eating shellfish (11:12), or fruit from a tree less than three years old (19:23), men with trimmed hair or beards (19:27), as well as wearing cloth made of mixed fibers (19:19), etc. Either it is valid as a total, or else it is superseded by the Gospel.

There is far less reason for the condemnation of homosexuals on account of the Sodom story in Genesis 19:

"But before [the two angels] lay down, the men of the city . . . compassed the house round, both old and young . . . from every quarter: And they called unto Lot . . . Where are the men which came in to thee this night? Bring them out unto us, that we may know them. And Lot went out at the door unto them and said, I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly. Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for . . . came they under the shadow of my roof." (Gen. 19:4-8)

On what basis may we assume the men of Sodom who wanted "to know" the angel visitors were gays and not straights attempting an act of phallic aggression? Lot's offering of his two daughters makes no sense otherwise. Phallic aggression was the practice of humiliating and subjugating conquered males through anal rape and was widely practiced in the ancient world. Sodom was infamous for its criminal treatment of travelers (Jasher chapter 19).

The corresponding reference in the Joseph Smith Version, also known as the Inspired Version, differs significantly from the King James Version:

" . . . This one man came in to sojourn among us, and he will needs now make himself to be a judge; now we will deal worse with him than with them. Wherefore they said unto the man, We will have the men, and thy daughters also; and we will do unto them as seemeth us good. Now this was after the wickedness of Sodom. And Lot said, Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me I pray you, plead with my brethren that I may not bring them out unto you; and ye shall not do unto them as seemeth good in your eyes." (Gen. 19:9-13 JST)

In this account, the threat of heterosexual rape is also raised by the men of Sodom as a retaliation against Lot's lack of cooperation. If we accept the Joseph Smith Translation, an exclusively homosexual interpretation becomes even less plausible.

It is erroneous to think the motive for Sodom's destruction was rampant homosexuality. In the first place, Sodom was a growing city which meant there was abundant heterosexual activity. Far more important, all subsequent biblical references to the sins of Sodom by Jesus and the prophets state that pride and inhospitality were the principal reasons for its destruction.

In any nomadic society like that of the Hebrews in the desert, the responsibility to share life's necessities with sojourners was often a matter of life and death. The people of Sodom were wont to rob, torture and murder strangers traveling through the plain. Ezekiel 16:49,50 lists pride and inhospitality as their main sin with secondary emphasis on to'eboth (idolatrous abominations). In Matthew 11:24, Christ chastises the cities which have rejected his teachings and says it will be more tolerable for Sodom in the day of judgment than for them. In Genesis 19, as in Matthew, the common theme is rejection of God's divinely commissioned messengers and the intended violence against them.

The New Testament

In light of hermeneutical evidence pertaining to key 01d Testament scriptures and the legal superiority of the Gospel to the Law, the case against homosexuality must now shift to the New Testament. Here too, there is very little to go on. There are five traditional allusions to homosexuality in the New Testament. Two of them, Jude:7 and 2 Peter 2:2 may be immediately dismissed because, since there is no mention of same-sex acts, these can only be inferred from the linkage of Sodom with homosexuality. What remains is three beleaguered passages from the Pauline epistles (if we ascribe authorship of 1 Timothy to Paul); one in Romans 1:26,27 and the others in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 and 1 Timothy 1:10. Let us examine the first of these:

"For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet. (Romans 1:26,27)

The setting for this passage is the Apostle's great sermon on the preeminence of faith over works. He begins with a traditional denunciation of idolatry and its evil consequences. The effectiveness of his argument requires the reader to concur with Paul in the Jewish aversion to idolatry. Paul leads the reader into judgment against the idolaters "who [willfully] changed the truth of God into a lie" so that in chapter two he can turn the same judgment against the reader himself. In Romans 2:1 Paul shifts from the third person to "thou" and accuses the reader of the same sins. All of this serves the rhetorical function of setting up the reader, a typical Jewish boaster (v.17) for indictment and subsequent deliverance through faith (Edwards p. 94).

If the function of Romans 1 is that of a rhetorical appeal, it is difficult to see how it can simultaneously be an exposition of doctrine likely to elicit controversy in the mind of the reader. The Apostle is not issuing an edict but making an appeal to the conventional wisdom of the reader. In verses 26 and 27 he argues that certain idolatrous women and men exchanged their "natural" opposite-sex roles for same-sex roles. Logic demands that one must first possess something before he can exchange it. If we insist that Paul is including lesbians and gays, who are, by nature, psychically disposed to the same sex, we put the Apostle into the unfortunate position of conflict with a fact of modern psychology, namely, that sexual orientation is a given, not a choice (Marmor p. 125). Interpreted thus, the moral authority of Paul's whole argument breaks down because a just condemnation can only result from free choice.

Furthermore, Paul's linkage with idolatry is fully intentional. We know that psychic homosexuality is not caused by idolatry, but Paul ascribes the whole list of evils to the latter, including those described in verses 26 and 27. Rather than attribute this kind of theological absurdity to a great mind, I prefer to give Paul the benefit of the doubt. It seems fairer to assume he was alluding to cultic prostitution, still prevalent in his day, or simply to heterosexuals caught up in a cultural scene of idolatry and homosexual lust.

In 1 Timothy 1:9,10 we are presented a list of wrongdoers:

"Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, [f]or whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine[.]"

Its purpose is to show that the Law was created for offenders like those mentioned, not for upright men. Of interest to us is the word arsenokoitais, translated "them that defile themselves with mankind." This term, also occurring in 1 Corinthians 6:9, presents an etymological problem. The root arseno refers to male, and, the root koitai to base sexual practices. The compound they form in rude English is "male f[*]ckers," which preserves both the vulgarity and ambiguity of the original Greek. It is not clear whether "male" refers to the sex of the penetrator or the penetrated. If the former is intended, the word may not be describing same-sex acts at all.

Such ambiguity would be best resolved by an examination of the word's normal usages in contemporary literature. Unfortunately, the word is extremely rare. Boswell believes that arsenokoitai is equivalent to the Latin drauci, in which case it would connote male prostitutes who take the active role with either men or women (Boswell pp. 341-353).

True or not, the word is definitely tied to the kind of prostitution practiced throughout Ephesus and Corinth; it cannot refer to homosexual acts in general. If Paul had a general condemnation in mind he would have undoubtedly chosen a word (or words) of wider applicability to homosexuals, as did Philo, a Hellenized Jew and a contemporary of Paul, who wrote just such a general condemnation of homosexual acts himself (Boswell p. 341).

Turning to 1 Corinthians 6:9,10 we read: "Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the Kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the Kingdom of God."

The problem with this text similarly involves the translation of two Greek words listed among the practitioners of vice, malakoi and arsenokoitai. The KJV Bible renders them "effeminate" and "abusers of themselves with mankind" respectively. Boswell says malakoi means soft, or by extension, morally weak (persons). Obviously, the compass of such a term is not limited to homosexuals. Boswell argues persuasively that malakoi is never used in Greek to refer to homosexuals or gay people (Boswell p. 107). Paul, of course, was writing in Greek to a Greek-speaking congregation.

Other scholars feel there is a precedent for translating it as "catamites," or, passive partners in homosexual acts. Since arsenokoitai refers to the active partner and connotes prostitution, it has been postulated that the pairing of these terms suggests male prostitutes and their clients. That would fit with what is known about the thriving institution of prostitution in Paul's day (Horner pp. 90,91). Thus, his objection may be to the perversion of love and the selling of sex. Whatever his original intent, the words of his text have become too ambiguous to be translated precisely.

It is possible that Paul, like Philo, held anti-homosexual views in line with Hellenistic Judaism. If so, in his mind, homosexuality would have been gentile vice, inextricably tied up with idolatrous beliefs. Indeed, it is possible for him to appear quite narrow in a number of his views, e.g., the proper length of a man's hair, the role of women in the Church, slavery, and especially sex. Sex was something Paul felt he could personally do without. He advocated celibacy for those able to contain themselves as the better way to serve God and prepare for the end of the world (which he believed was imminent) (1 Corinthians 7: 7,25-32).

Does not this differ rather sharply from the LDS understanding of the importance of marriage and children? Clearly, it is possible to be an inspired prophet and yet retain certain limited personal opinions on important subjects. These opinions may be expressed publicly, and in Paul's case, even be canonized. In fairness to Paul, however, it must be remembered that his advice was always geared to the specialized concerns of the congregation he happened to be addressing. If they understood exactly what he meant in Corinth and Ephesus, they may not have elsewhere. Paul certainly had no idea his letters would be made into a canon by which future generations would judge such issues as homosexuality. If he had, his approach would probably have been different.

Whatever Paul's understanding of homosexuality was, he did not acquire it from any known teaching of the Saviour's. It is a major impediment to the case against homosexuality that Jesus, the foremost authority on the Gospel, had nothing adverse to say on the subject. His silence is remarkable when one considers how outspoken he could be on those sins which he found objectionable. Jesus' whole attitude toward sexuality seems uniquely serene in contrast to that of Paul, whose epistles, incidentally, were composed prior to the appearance of the written gospels. In his exquisite chapter on Christ and sexuality (pp. 110-126), Tom Horner observes that this new, relaxed perspective is the result of spiritua1 liberation from the world's obsession with sex, the importance of which is stressed either by excess of indulgence or of abstention. To restate Horner, what the Gospel attempts to do is establish an attitude of the heart that will instinctively prefer right conduct over wrong thereby freeing the spirit from any preoccupation with legalities.

This new perspective is evident in the story of the healing of the centurion's servant (Matthew 8: 5-13; Luke 7:1-10). As Horner astutely observes, the care shown by the Roman official for a mere slave is extraordinary-inappropriate, really, unless one allows for the presence of a love relationship of some kind. Luke uses the word doulos or "slave," but, Matthew, closer to the Aramaic vernacular, chooses pais or [servant] boy. Pais is the word an older man would use to describe a younger friend or lover in Greek (Horner p. 122). I believe this is a typical example-in the outward sense at least-of a kind of homoerotic relationship, common throughout the Roman Empire, between persons of unequal status. The thing that gives it relevance is that the centurion, in sympathy with the Jews, showed unprecedented faith in a Jewish prophet. Jesus found nothing to condemn in his actions but much to praise.

Cultural Attitudes at Variance

Condemnation of homosexuality is not the manifest and inescapable conclusion of the Standard Works. In fact, once the underpinning of preconception is removed, its scriptural foundation proves dangerously unable to support the weight of the Church's present stand. No sooner does the case in contra threaten collapse than it is shored up with a new argument: even though something is not specifically forbidden in the Scriptures, that does not mean it is sanctioned.

Many natural phenomena lack scriptural sanction. The motive behind this conservatism is clearly the same old homophobia which led to a faulty interpretation in the first place. To make use of such an argument is to admit that one's objections do not derive from the Scriptures themselves but are prejudicially imposed upon them. Anti-gay "theology" thus exerts its own authority, independent of the text interpreted, simply by virtue of its long-established tradition.

Requiring gays and lesbians to validate their sexuality in canonical terms is an ethically different matter from requiring an explication of apparently incriminating verses. One cannot make such a demand of others without calling his own judgment into question. For example, since the doctrine of biblical sufficiency is widely taught in other Christian denominations, an investigator may wonder why he should read the Book of Mormon. He may even suppose that certain passages in the Bible preclude the possibility of latter-day scripture (Deuteronomy 12:32; Revelation 22:18). But is it fair or wise of him to demand proof of the Book of Mormon's authenticity in the pages of the Bible before he is willing to consider it on its own merit?

God asks rhetorically, having spoken one word, if He cannot speak another (2 Nephi 29:9). We might ask, because He has praised one aspect of sexuality, do we have the right to assume there is nothing praiseworthy in its complement? Both occur in nature, and, arguably, both express the nature of the Creator.

Recognizing its underling bias, then, let us examine the question, "Why is there no specific validation of same-sexual love in the Scriptures?"

Of course, no definitive explanation for such an omission is possible at present. Nothing is more routinely omitted than the obvious, however. The ancients generally seem to have been more at ease with the idea of sexual diversity. It is not unlikely that older Hebrew traditions made allowance for the fact that a small percentage of people are naturally at variance with the sexual majority. A special theological justification might not have been required to account for it.

Historically, religions that have tolerated it have had some kind of homosexual prototype or precedent in their source mythology. Thus, if the earlier Hebrews were also tolerant of same-sexual love, it likely would have been validated in scripture we do not possess. Many "plain and precious things" were expurgated from the Bible because of the sin and carelessness of its preservers (1 Nephi 13:26). A substantial portion of the record inscribed upon the golden plates remains untranslated on account of our lack of faith (Ether 4:5-7). Who can say that an understanding of God's purpose in creating homosexual beings was not among them?

The Old Testament is consistent and emphatic in its portrayal of Yahweh, or Jehovah, as a solitary God. It reflects Judaism's reaction against the polytheism of its pagan neighbors. One is apt to suppose this was the understanding of God's people from the beginning, yet, recent archaeological discoveries suggest that earlier Hebrews conceptualized God as a married Being. One bas-relief represents Yahweh with a consort. (Mormons will not fail to appreciate the significance of this find). The emphasis on monotheism in the Old Testament does not preclude the validity of the earlier tradition. It merely shows that later ages canonized from among diverse source materials those things which reinforced their own orthodoxies.

If a more relaxed attitude toward homosexuality did exist among the pre-exilic Hebrews, the Book of Mormon peoples would have brought it with them to the new world. It has already been observed that the Book of Mormon is oddly silent on this subject. Yet, in pursuit of its major historical theme, it takes great trouble to identify the causes of spiritual decline among the Nephites and Lamanites.

It is interesting to note that one of the remarkable features of American Indian culture (which Mormons believe is a residue of the great Lamanite civilization) is its long-standing tolerance of sexual diversity. Tolerance reaches its height in the institution of berdachism. A berdache is typically a cross-dressing homosexual male who has both sacred and practical duties within the tribe. His androgyny is perceived as a spiritual difference. God made him that way, so, it is unwise for society to attempt to change him. The special status and religious reverence widely afforded berdaches in Indian society indicate a tradition radically opposed to the homophobia of European culture. Apart from berdachism, casual homosexuality among traditionalist Indian men and women was and is no cause for concern (Williams pp. 17-30, 91-93, 142).

Parallel to the tradition of the berdache, though not as widespread, is that of the amazon. Most often she would be a woman who rejected feminine behavior and occupations in favor of masculine activities such as hunting and warfare. In these she frequently equaled or excelled the men. Her erotic interest was in other females whom she actively courted. She and her lovers were accepted as valuable members of society, free of stigma. The amazon's gender variance, like the berdache's was regarded as arising from spiritual differences and, in some cases, also connected with shamanistic (shamans, sometimes called "medicine men," were priests believed to be in communication with the world of spirits) powers.

Another clue to the difference of attitude toward homosexuality in aboriginal American civilization is found in pre-Columbian art. The great urban civilizations of the Mayas and the Incas produced much erotica. In the National Museum of Anthropology and Archaeology in Peru, I have seen examples of clay sculpture depicting male-male intercourse. That homoeroticism should figure among the subjects worthy of representation is significant.

As Latter-day Saints, we are fond of citing evidences from these same cultures as corroboration of Book of Mormon testimony. We point to accounts of the Creation and the Flood in Indian writings which parallel those in Genesis. We find baptismal fonts in the ruins of their sacred architecture. This should give us pause before we dismiss the evidences pertinent to homosexuality under consideration. At very least, they are a strong indication that homosexuality must have been known among the original Lamanites.

Separating us from these ancient civilizations is a wide band of Eurasian medieval history. John Boswell's landmark study chronicles the complete defamation homosexuality suffered during this period (Boswell 137-166). Mormons refer to this time as the Great Apostacy, an age of unprecedented religious corruption. We do not normally hold any of its theological inventions in very high regard. Yet all of the arguments used by the LDS Church against homosexuality may be traced directly to the letters of medieval church fathers, including its linkage with Sodom and its "unnaturalness" (Kimball 77-89).

Their dialectics furnished a rationale for the torture and incineration of people accused of "sodomy". The epithet, "faggot," which has come down to us recalling sticks of burnt wood from the pyres, suggests the gruesome inevitability of their sentence. Where even the slang persists, can one underestimate the impact this period has had upon the western cultural conception of homosexuality?

Decimated by plague and war, European populations were not magnanimously disposed toward the practitioners of non-reproductive sex. On the other hand, the Church found a way to dispose of its enemies and confiscate their wealth. Spain, in particular, used anti-homosexual sentiment to its own advantage, first in its quest to drive the "sodomitical" Moors from the Iberian peninsula, and second in its plunder of the Americas among whose inhabitants "sodomy" was also rife. Persecution, theft and political aggrandizement were the latent motives behind medieval homophobia. Well might we question contemporary western attitudes along with the matrix that gave birth to them. After all, can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit (Matthew 7:18)?

The Gospel and the Individual Solution

Whatever the reasons for a lack of homosexually positive scripture, we, the product of medieval European society, cannot make assumptions based upon our inherent homophobia. All we can safely say is that the need for a specific sanction has become necessary in the contemporary Christian mind because of the antecedents of the last thousand years. We turn to the Scriptures, but they have never boasted the complete catalogue of solutions to every dilemma. Instead they teach us how to obtain the necessary answers from God. In Doctrine and Covenants 8:1-3 God promises:

". . . Assuredly as the Lord liveth, who is your God and your Redeemer, even so surely shall you receive a knowledge of whatsoever things you shall ask in faith, with an honest heart, believing that you shall receive . . . yea, behold I will tell you in your mind and in your heart, by the Holy Ghost, which shall come upon you and which shall dwell in your heart. Now, behold, this is the spirit of revelation . . . ."

When God provides an unequivocal answer, we must be prepared to accept it, to embrace it, even to defend it. If Nephi had not esteemed his personal answer above the law and the teachings of the prophets, he could not have killed Laban to obtain the brass plates. Had he been mistaken about the source of his revelation, Nephi might have faced eternal damnation. The Lord did give the commandment, however, and with it a justification for the spilling of Laban's blood. This branch of Israel, soon to be transplanted in America, must not "dwindle and perish in unbelief" for want of God's word (1 Nephi 4:10-15). It did not matter that, as a nation, they would ultimately fail in belief. So important was the need for certainty that what in other circumstances would be an act of murder became an act of righteousness.

From this account we learn several important things. First, even a minority in Israel requires an explicit understanding of the law by which it must live. Second, and ironically, God is sometimes willing to allow the contravention of important parts of the law "to bring forth his righteous purposes". third, sin, therefore, resides not in the act itself, but in the motive, the timing, the lack of permission.

Nephi's answer is an unorthodox, exceptional solution. That is its value as moral instruction. The better one is acquainted with them, the more one realizes that the great lessons in Scripture often disrupt prevailing notions of morality rather than confirm them. That should indicate to us that God's freedom to help the individual nearly always transcends the level of morality which the body of people is prepared to accept. This will continue to be the case until, like the city of Enoch, we can so internalize the spirit of rectitude that we are able to shed the braces and correctives of the law.

The Apostle Paul had this ultimate freedom in mind when he wrote:

"All things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but all things edify not."(I Corinthians 10:23; see also 6:12)

Paul clearly feels he has liberty to do some "illegal" things made expedient by his need for personal growth. Other things become superfluous for the same reason.

These verses are particularly troublesome to legalists within the Gospel because they set the moral authority of the inspired individual above the community standard. Perhaps all people cannot be trusted to be as conscientious as Paul in their personal interpretations of expediency. Some will undoubtedly abuse their freedom, but the plan of salvation never has been without hazards. The light of Christ is given to every man to help him know the difference between good and evil. Every member of the Church is additionally given the gift of the Holy Ghost so that the honest in heart will know how to make good use of their freedom.

Paul's iconoclastic pronouncement appears in the context of a discussion of sexual immorality. He asserts that sexual immorality is never an expedience for members of Christ's body. Obviously, he means to exclude only sinful, unwhole expressions of sex. In light of his statement-one of many which announce the triumph of the Gospel over the Law-do we honestly see Paul in the business of setting up another code of inflexible rules?

Joseph Smith taught that:

"Our heavenly Father is more liberal in His views, and boundless in His mercies and blessings, than we are ready to believe or receive; and at the same time more terrible to the workers of iniquity, more awful in the executions of His punishments, and more ready to detect in every false way, than we are apt to suppose Him to be . . . He says: 'Ask and you shall receive, seek and ye shall find; but if you will take that which is not your own, or which I have not given you, you shall be rewarded according to your deeds; but no good thing will I withhold from them who walk uprightly before me, and do my will in all things . . . .'" (Smith p. 257)

The question we must ask is, "What makes a particular act of sexuality immoral by the Lord's standard?" Is it not its motive, its timing, or its lack of divine permission? If not, how is it that such things as sexual intercourse between siblings (the offspring of Adam and Eve), marriage to more than one woman at a time (polygamy), and common-law marriage (in South American countries-see Adjustments of the Law section below) have been expedient at certain times and unacceptable at others?

Issues of Fornication, Celibacy and Non-Reproductivity

Increasingly, Mormons are willing to accept a homosexual's orientation as given, but see celibacy as the only righteous alternative open to him/her. They hold that sexually active gays and lesbians are automatically guilty of fornication (something forbidden in the Gospel) because they are not legally married. It is curious to see the Gospel applied against itself in this way. After all, in the Gospel, immorality is primarily an attitude of the heart, not a technicality of law. What would happen if certain more liberal states opted to legally recognize same-sex marriage? Would it no longer be a sin?

We should rather be considering what it is about the spirit of fornication which makes it immoral. I believe it is a mentality which, in essence, seeks to enjoy a gift of great worth from another person for as little as possible in return; a no-fault, noncommittal sexual ethic. It is a selfishness that devalues both the gift given and the gift taken. It is the spirit of Corianton's harlotry, and, it is a serious evil (Alma 39:4-11). Ultimately, it detaches eroticism from the emotional and spiritual elements necessary for a fullness of joy. It is sinful on account of its motive, timing, and lack of divine permission.

Likewise, celibacy is answerable to the "spirit" of the law. Its purpose is to deliver a person clean and free of regret to the commencement of his/her eternal love relationship/s. It is a necessary and beautiful attitude for lovers to be, but not an end in itself. The Bible condemns mandatory celibacy (at least for heterosexuals) in I Timothy 4:1,3. In one part of the first letter to the Corinthians, the generally sex-negative Apostle Paul advises married couples not to deprive each other sexually, except by mutual consent and for purposes of fasting and prayer, so they will not be vulnerable to temptation (1 Corinthians 7:3-5 KJV; also New Jerusalem Bible).

Here and elsewhere, the need of intimacy and sexual expression between heterosexuals is recognized as expedient. Why are the needs of Christian homosexuals less important? Using Paul's logic of I Cor. 7:2 and 7:9, why is it not urgent that lesbians and gays be allowed a parallel option to legitimize their unions? Christ taught that the "sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath" (Mark 2:27). He excoriated the Pharisees for binding heavy burdens of law upon their brethren which they themselves were unwilling to bear (Matthew 23:4). Let heterosexual legalists who lay the burden of lifelong celibacy on the shoulders of their homosexual brothers and sisters beware they do not fall into the same trap.

Many object to homosexual acts on the grounds that they cannot produce children. If so, one is under logical obligation to object to non-reproductive sex among married heterosexuals. The Church makes no attempt to discourage infertile couples from physical intimacy. If its sole justification is reproduction, sex during a woman's infertile period, as well as post-menopausal relations, must also be proscribed. In theory, all sex which does not lead to impregnation is indefensible.

In their enthusiasm for children and the family, Latter-Day Saints often forget that everyone is not meant to be a parent in this life. What else does one conclude from the following verse?

"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. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it." (Matthew 19:12)

In the strict sense, a eunuch is a male who lacks complete genitalia, which accounts for the first two categories mentioned. By including the third, an elective category, Jesus shows that he intends the word to refer to men (and women?) whose mission in this life demands the sacrifice of marriage and children. Eunuchs were widely associated with pagan sexual practices in the ancient world, especially homosexual activities. Considering their reputation, I find it remarkable that Christ should number this last exalted group of people among them. Probably, he included himself as well (Isaiah 53:8). Jesus apparently had no phobia of homosexuality or singleness. More importantly, in the context of a discussion on marriage, he took special care to observe that some people are exempt from that law.

The prophet Isaiah wrote this concerning the childless daughter of Zion:

"Sing, 0 barren, thou that didst not bear Break forth into singing, and cry aloud thou that didst not travail with child, For more are the children of the desolate Than the children of the married wife, saith the Lord . . . Fear not; for thou shalt not be ashamed: Neither be thou confounded; for thou shalt not be put to shame: For thou shalt forget the shame of thy youth, And shalt not remember the reproach of thy widowhood any more. (Isaiah 54:1,3)

Concerning the eunuch, he wrote:

Neither let the eunuch say, Behold, I am a dry tree. For thus saith the Lord unto eunuchs that keep my sabbaths, And choose the things that please me, And take hold of my covenant; Even unto them will I give in mine house and within my walls A place and a name better than of sons and of daughters: I will give them an everlasting name That shall not be cut off. (Isaiah 56:3-5)

Clearly, failure to marry and have children in this life is no hindrance to the faithful. The egalitarian attitude toward the childless woman and man contained in these verses is a world apart from the hieratic outlook of Leviticus and Deuteronomy. Isaiah's attitude is all the more striking when contrasted with Deuteronomy 23:1:

"He that is wounded in the stones, or hath his privy member cut off, shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord."

The conflict presented in these opposite views of the eunuch's place in Israel illustrates the difference between Prophetic and Priestly schools of thought. The Books of Leviticus and Deuteronomy are characteristic of Judaism's emphasis on ritual purity after the Exile, and, according to scholars, reached their final form in that period. With the birth of Christ, Judaism had become a different religion from the one expounded by Isaiah and other prophets. Jerusalem had become the city which kills the prophets, and stones them that are sent unto her (Luke 13:34).

In Acts 8:26-39, God provides another "unorthodox" solution to an individual problem through the Gospel. In an early episode of apostolic evangelism, Philip was led by the Spirit to an Ethiopian eunuch who, appropriately enough, had been reading from the scroll of Isaiah. No doubt, the eunuch's interest was captured by the reference to a victim of suffering and humiliation deprived of his posterity. Philip seized the moment to preach of Christ, and the eunuch responded with such great faith that he requested baptism on the spot.

In view of the fact that the Apostle was about to immerse a castrated male, a foreigner, and a negro, in contravention of the Law, his lack of inhibition is remarkable. There was no need to confer with the Brethren, to appoint a special committee to study the problem, or to deliberate over theological precedent. Philip obeyed the Spirit and left future generations to assess the impact of his actions. Would that this kind of prophetic courage in the matter of same-sexuality were found today among the leaders of God's Church.

Contemporary Revelation and Homosexuality

In a televised interview with Charles Kuralt (February 1987, CBS), Dallin Oaks reiterated the Mormon "truism" that prophets through the ages have repeatedly condemned homosexuality. With all due respect to a modern apostle, this is simply untrue. The prophets, including those in ancient America, have been practically unanimous in their avoidance of this subject. Only recently, within the last quarter-century, have apostles and prophets made explicit statements condemning homosexuality per se. None of these has ever been announced as a definitive, direct revelation. No prophet has ever claimed or published an original revelation on the phenomenon of same-sexual orientation. Some have prepared statements of official Church policy and/or arguments against homosexuality based on 1) traditional interpretation of biblical verse, 2) appeals to theories of psychology (albeit, obsolete theories), and 3) the conventional wisdom of western culture.

Once again, it must be affirmed that when a prophet or apostle of the Lord claims direct revelation through the power of the Holy Ghost, his authority on that point is absolute. The amazing thing is that no prophet has ever based his opposition to homosexuality on his own direct revelation but rather on revelations which he supposed others to have received.

Attitudes of the Prophets

Since no modern prophet has invoked the ultimate authority of personal revelation in this matter, no claim of prophetic infallibility can be made. When confronted with the notion that prophets are always prophetic in their understanding and opinions, Joseph Smith corrected, ". . . A prophet [is] only a prophet when he [is] acting as such" (Smith p. 278). It is not surprising that with no latter-day revelation to guide them in the issue of same-sexuality, modern apostles and prophets have followed the homophobic path taken by all major denominations of the Judeo-Christian tradition. Indeed, prior to the emergence of gay activism in the 1960's it would have been extraordinary (and dangerous) for any church not to follow such a path.

What if Joseph Smith, for instance, had published a revelation claiming heavenly sanction of homosexuality? Its effect would have been explosive enough to disrupt the Restoration before it began. As it turns out, Joseph Smith was not at all homophobic. In a funeral address delivered in 1843 at Nauvoo, Illinois, he gave comfort to a survivor of one Lorenzo Barns who had died while serving a mission in Great Britain. The Prophet noted that Brother Barns' "very friend" was present in the congregation that day (Feliz p. 3). Attempting to enlighten the congregation on a particular principle of the resurrection, he is quoted as saying:

" . . . to bring it to the understanding, it would be upon the same principle as though two who were vary friends [sic] indeed should lie down upon the same bed at night locked in each other's embrace talking of their love[,] and should awake in the morning together[.] [T]hey could immediately renew their conversation of love even while rising from their bed[,] but if they were alone [and] in separate apartments[,] they could not as readily salute each other as though they were together . . . " (Wilford Woodruff Journal, entry for April 16, 1843, as cited by Feliz p. 3); (emphasis and bracketed punctuation mine).

The Joseph Smith Diary kept by Willard Richards contains a briefer but similar version of the same statement. So does the Documentary History of the Church (Smith pp. 294-297). Admittedly, nothing erotic need be inferred from these remarks, but even the skeptical reader is struck by the relaxed attitude toward same-sex intimacies in the Woodruff account. One cannot write off the Prophet's apparent lack of concern for the implications of his statement as nineteenth century naivete. Homosexuality existed then as now. Widespread accusations of fornication, adultery and "buggery" were being leveled against the Mormons by the Illinois press (Feliz p. 5). He could hardly have been unaware of such rumors.

Joseph is unique among prophets of the Restored Church owing to his highly developed capacity for inspiration and the number of his visions. Few have beheld the Father enthroned in the highest Heaven with the Son at his right hand, as did he and Sidney Rigdon. Manifestly, one's perspective could hardly be conventional after an experience like that. Joseph occasionally expressed dissatisfaction at having to withhold knowledge from the body of the Church on account of its unpreparedness. Certainly, he knew more than he was permitted to tell. At the end of the account of his incomparable vision of the degrees of glory, he alludes to "marvelous works" and "mysteries of the kingdom" which were unlawful to utter, yet which may be known by those who have the Holy Spirit (D&C 76:113-117). I believe the Prophet had esoteric insight into the phenomenon of homosexuality. For that reason, he declined to rush in where his successors have not feared to tread.

In 1969 Apostle Spencer W. Kimball's book, The Miracle of Forgiveness, was published. A special chapter on homosexuality was included, largely as a repudiation of the "liberalizing process" of American society undertaken by the gay community. (That same year, the Stonewall riots in New York had focused national attention upon the gay liberation movement.) This was an admittedly distasteful subject for the Apostle's pen brought on by the need of drawing a clear battle line between the permissiveness of the world and the Church's higher standards.

In his book, the scriptural case against homosexuality is entirely conventional-even to the replication of familiar errors, such as its connection with Sodom, etc. Apostle Kimball prosecutes homosexuality with charges that are ill-founded and out of date, even for their day. He asserts that masturbation often "evolves [by degrees] into total homosexuality". He suggests that "through the ages, perhaps as an extension of homosexual practices, men and women have sunk . . . to seeking sexual satisfactions with animals." He regards homosexual practices, at least theoretically, as threatening to depopulate the earth (Kimball pp. 78-81).

Twenty years earlier, data collected by Alfred Kinsey in his now famous research projects on human sexuality had been published. Even if one takes exception to its numbers and percentages, it was readily apparent that masturbation leads more often to full-blown heterosexuality than anything else. Today we understand that masturbation has no effect upon whether the brain is oriented to males or females. That is psychically programmed in the individual long before he/she begins the process of sexual self-discovery. The thinking reader of Kimball's chapter will certainly wonder what has bestiality to do with homosexuality any more than heterosexuality. Finally, does anyone, including the author, seriously expect that the heterosexuals of this planet could be persuaded to suspend reproductive activity for a single day, let alone a generation?

Apostle Kimball is not claiming ground-breaking revelation or special insights here. Indeed, at this point in his career, regardless of what his later experiences as Prophet taught him, he sees no need for additional enlightenment. He feels the Lord's word is sufficiently clear, thus, an open mind on the question of homosexuality is of no use to him. From his initial paragraph he is well beyond objectivity:

"Homosexuality is an ugly sin, repugnant to those who find no temptation in it, as well as to many past offenders seeking a way out of its clutches. It is embarrassing and unpleasant as a subject for discussion . . . . " (Kimball p. 78)

Because he regards the issue as one completely settled by previous revelation, he feels safe indulging in heterosexist polemics-so safe, in fact, he confesses discomfort and embarrassment over his subject. Though the purpose of this chapter is to assure the reader that there is a way out of homosexuality, Kimball actually undermines the authority of his position. One would expect that a healer of any real experience would have lost his squeamishness to the disease by now. To be embarrassed is to stumble over the loose ends of one's emotions; to be caught unprepared for the experience one is facing.

At emotional and practical disadvantage with his subject, the Apostle is dealing in theory. Although he certainly believes his views are right, he makes no pretension to prophetic infallibility. Thus it is not heretical to subject them to evaluation more critical than that reserved for bona fide, canonized revelations. One cannot fault the sincerity of his convictions; one has no right to doubt the charity of this man, renown for his compassion and philanthropy. One can say that at this stage of his theological development, Brother Kimball, like most General Authorities in this century, was unprepared to allow homosexuals the fuller measure of God's grace.

One can also legitimately question the long-term progress of "reformed" gays and lesbians he cites whose affidavits crowd the files of Church offices. It would be interesting to see how they have fared ten to twenty years down the line. Regrettably, no such follow-up study has been done.

The fundamental assumption of Spencer Kimball's theory, as well as that of most official statements of Church policy, is that homosexuality is a condition temporarily imposed upon the basic heterosexual instincts of the spirit through sinful indulgence. Consequently, homosexuals can become wholly heterosexual with proper motivation. Lesbians and gays have been asserting the contrary for thousands of years. Clinical experience has borne out the fixed nature of psychic orientation irrespective of learned behaviors. The fact is that now even prominent LDS psychologists, such as Jan Stout and Carlfred Broderick readily concede that the basic direction of a person's orientation is a permanent feature of his/her psyche, and that people are mostly unable to move more than a short distance from their "assigned" position on the Kinsey Scale. (The Kinsey scale is a division of the continuum of sexual attraction into seven points ranging from purely heterosexual (0) to purely homosexual (6) with mixtures of these absolutes lying between them, including bisexuality(3).)

As science vindicates the homosexual, the Church is increasingly faced with problems of credibility. To save its reputation on this issue, it will have to turn a critical eye upon its anti-homosexual policies. It must determine how much is revelation and how much is assumption.

Historically, we have always done that. Joseph Fielding Smith once stated that man would never land on the moon. In retrospect, it is easy to see that he was not acting as a prophet when he formed this particular opinion. Even so, in many other matters he spoke the mind and will of God. We do not doubt he was a true prophet. Spencer W. Kimball was also a true prophet, who, nonetheless, was mistaken in his opinion on same-sexual love. Whenever there have been frailties, latter-day prophets and apostles have been men of integrity. Rarely, if ever, have they abused their prophetic gifts by claiming inspiration they have not received. In light of progress in the study of homosexual issues in the sciences and the Scriptures, is it not time for our leaders to use their sacred gifts for increased understanding?

Adjustments of the Law

Some may argue that the Church cannot bend the laws of God to suit man. Assuming they remain unpersuaded by any of the foregoing, I think they would be interested to know that the Church has already amended certain moral teachings for the convenience of some. No less an authority than when Christ taught that whoever divorces his wife for any reason other than adultery and marries again is himself guilty of adultery.

Jesus' teaching was expedient in the ancient Jewish context. Since women could not normally inherit property from their fathers, they were dependent upon their husbands for their wealth. Clearly, the potential for the abuse of women in a system such as this was great. Jesus' doctrine on divorce is a timely effort to temper patriarchal privilege with justice. Invoking divine authority, Paul forbade divorce altogether in 1 Corinthians 7:10,39. Nowadays, the Church wisely chooses not to add excommunication to the burden of family break-up. Yet, it does so at the risk of disregarding a dominical commandment.(Dominical commandments occupy a special place in theology having been spoken by the Lord, Jesus Christ, Himself.)

In some South American countries with extensive LDS missionary programs, divorce does not legally exist owing to the influence of the Catholic Church upon the laws of state. (Catholicism bans divorce and remarriage based on its interpretation of New Testament scripture.) There is an expensive "annulment" procedure available to the affluent, but this option lies outside the economic reach of many of the groups the Church is trying to convert. When poorer couples have irreconcilable problems in their marriages, they simply abandon each other. Because battered women with children are frequently involved, and because economic and social needs are better satisfied in a family setting, individuals regroup and enter "common law" marriage.

As a missionary in Chile during the late 1970's I came to appreciate the human dimensions of this situation. I realized that the Church took a courageous and compassionate step with its acceptance of these unions. It did so on the condition that the parties involved consider themselves under the same obligation to each other as if legally wedded. They were then fully eligible to be baptized and even sealed as families in the temple.

The General Authorities might have stipulated that these couples refrain from sex as long as they remain technically married to other people. They chose not to, presumably, because they felt it was too much to ask. Here again, the Church made an exception to the laws against divorce and adultery. If the Scriptures condemned homosexuality as often and as explicitly as they do adultery, there could be no doubt about the former.

The Church was willing to adjust its policy because it understood and sympathized with the problems of heterosexuals in a difficult situation. When modern prophets begin to understand and sympathize with the plight of lesbian and gay Latter-Day Saints who need both their religion and their sexual identity to be happy, reconciliation will be forthcoming.

A Personal Testimony

I believe in the Gospel of Jesus Christ and in the Scriptures. I also believe that the power of the priesthood is genuine, and that ours is the one church authorized to represent the Lord on earth. I believe modern prophets and apostles are divinely called and have access to revelation in the measure they seek it.

As a student of the Gospel, I believe I have a responsibility to the truth; to be accurate and fair in my representation of it, and, I believe I shall be held ultimately accountable for what is written here. Throughout the preparation of this study, I have asked God to help me remain at the center of the truth. I believe His Spirit has been with me. This is perhaps an "unscholarly" confession to make, nevertheless, the people for whom the message is intended will appreciate my reason.

Others will never be able to accept that homosexuality is not a defect and a sin except by ecclesiastical decree. Until they have one, they will be cautious. They will give the Church's traditional posture the benefit of the doubt. They are in no hurry to see a resolution of the problem. Like the Apostle Thomas, they will be happy to accept the good news but only when they have tangible proof. They who require no more proof than the testimony of the Spirit within their minds and hearts are happier, because they can accept the freedom God is extending to faithful gays and lesbians this very day. As with Nephi and Paul, that which is revealed unto them by the power of the Holy Spirit is lawful for them here and now.

My own interest in gay/lesbian spiritual liberation is more than academic. I am a Mormon, from a long line of Mormons, yet, I am also a homosexual. I have come to realize that I cannot cease being either. Thus, happiness depends upon my ability to reconcile these two facets of my nature. On my mission, I endeavored to bring people to the verge of a spiritual discovery. The price of that discovery was sometimes very high. During the course of the discussions, many felt the upwelling of the Spirit in their souls. I would explain to them that they must follow in the direction they were being led, regardless of the sacrifice. On the strength of that feeling, they were expected to change the habits of a lifetime, to reject their childhood religion, and, frequently, to defy family and friends-whatever it took-for the sake of the truth.

Years later, when I was seeking to come to terms with my sexual orientation, I was able to more fully appreciate what I had been asking of my investigators. After much denial, suffering, fasting and prayer, many tears and brave efforts to change, I submitted my problem to God. It was not as though I had never asked for help, but, because of the thorough moral instruction I had received, only one answer was possible. God's answer was to continually deny my request to become heterosexual. Since a homosexual orientation was supposedly a great hindrance to exaltation, why wouldn't it yield to any of the means by which one usually overcomes sin? Why couldn't I meet at least one person who had actually reversed his orientation so I could learn how it is done? I was baffled by the contradiction. Intellectually, I understood that one does not go before God with a closed mind, that is, prepared for one answer only. It never occurred to me that I had completely closed my mind to God's gift of same-sexuality and its purpose in the overall scheme. How ungrateful and short-sighted was my request; with good reason it was refused. Indeed, what right have I or anyone else to tamper with a single phenomenon God has set in motion in this complex universe?

When it first entered my mind that homosexuality might be a good thing basically, and that perhaps God wanted me to be as I am, I regarded it as a Satanic prompting. Paradoxically, I was filled with peace, well-being, and a sense of tremendous relief. It was as if I had been born again. As often as I would ponder those thoughts, they would bring great spiritual joy. There could only be one source of the peace I was feeling. I had felt it before, and, on my mission I had taught others to recognize it. Was I not under obligation to follow the Spirit in the direction I was being led?

The validation of my belief in the intrinsic goodness of homosexuality is personal revelation not hermeneutics, history, or psychobiology. These provide only the impetus to reconsider and to ask the appropriate questions of God. In my testimony I rely upon the key given by Moroni:

"For behold, the Spirit of Christ is given to every man, that he may know good from evil; wherefore, I show unto you the way to judge; for every thing which inviteth to do good, and to persuade to believe in Christ is sent forth by the power and gift of Christ; wherefore, ye may know with a perfect knowledge it is of God. But whatsoever thing persuadeth men to do evil, and believe not in Christ, and deny him, and serve not God, then you may know with a perfect knowledge it is of the devil . . . " (Moroni 7:16,17).

If I must accept that God abhors me and all homosexuals for our unchosen sexuality; that God created a perfectly formed capacity for love and desire in us which focuses precisely on that which is wrong for it, and that this capacity is irreversible; if I must accept that God would make an exception to the law against adultery but remains adamant towards the practical needs of lesbians and gays, then I am tempted to disbelieve the justice of God. I am not persuaded to serve Him because there seems to be little hope of fulfillment in it. No, according to the prophet's key, this doctrine must be Satanic. On the other hand, when I believe that God can provide a fulfilling place for me in His kingdom; that I am under the same obligation as all other children of God to make good use of my gifts; that I am at liberty to be truly happy, then I believe in Christ and love His justice with all my heart. Whatever He requires of me is not too great a price to pay. Thus, I know with a perfect knowledge that my testimony comes from God though the power of Christ. I believe that I too am eligible for this promise:

"Thus saith the Lord—I, the Lord, am merciful and gracious unto those who fear me, and delight to honor those who serve me in righteousness and truth unto the end. Great shall be their reward and eternal shall be their glory. And to them will I reveal all mysteries, yea, all the hidden mysteries of my kingdom from days of old, and for ages to come, will I make known unto them the good pleasure of my will concerning all things pertaining to my kingdom. Yea, even the wonders of eternity shall they know, and things to come will I show them, even the things of many generations. And their wisdom shall be great, and their understanding reach to heaven; and before them the wisdom of the wise shall perish, and the understanding of the prudent shall come to naught. For by my Spirit will I enlighten them, and by my power will I make known unto them the secrets of my will—yea, even those things which eye has not seen, nor ear heard, nor yet entered into the heart of man." (D&C 76:5-10)

Homosexuality is one of those hidden mysteries, the truth about which confounds the wise and defies the understanding of the prudent. For above all the fury and strife of the leaders of God's Church against it, God's Spirit is quietly affirming the sexuality of lesbians and gays who stand by Him.

The time is fast approaching when the Lord will no longer suffer the contradiction between his public and private ministries to continue. Heretofore, it has not been expedient to attempt to send homosexually-positive revelation to Church leadership; to put "new wine into old bottles". God would save both the wine and the bottles. Yet, God makes only new wine. If His servants cannot receive new doctrine, increased understanding, and a knowledge of mysteries that are important to His children, their usefulness will have passed away. For its part, the Gospel of Jesus Christ refuses to categorically condemn homosexuality. I invite all fellow Latter-Day Saints to consider carefully the position they take on this issue.

" . . . I beseech of you, brethren, that you should search diligently in the light of Christ that ye may know good from evil; and if ye will lay hold upon every good thing and condemn it not, ye certainly will be a child of Christ." (Moroni 7:19)

The Book of Jasher (editor and translator anonymous in original edition). J.H. Parry & Co., 1887.

Boswell, John, Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality. University of Chicago Press, 1980.

Edwards, George R., Gay/Lesbian Liberation: A Biblical Perspective. The Pilgrim Press, 1984.

Feliz, Antonio A., Joseph Smith Was Not Homophobic, Affinity, September 1987.

Horner, Tom, Jonathan Loved David: Homosexuality in Biblical Times. The Westminster Press, 1978.

Kimball, Spencer W. The Miracle of Forgiveness. Bookcraft, 1969.

Marmor, Judd et al. Homosexual Behavior: A Modern Reappraisal. Basic Books, 1980.

The New Jerusalem Bible. Edited by Henry Wansbrough. Doubleday, 1985.

Patai, Raphael Sex and the Family in the Bible and the Middle East. Doubleday, 1959.

Smith, Joseph. Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith.Edited by Joseph Fielding Smith. The Deseret News Press, 1942.

Williams, Walter L. The Spirit and the Flesh: Sexual Diversity in American Indian Culture. Beacon Press, 1986.


List of Biblical Scriptures Traditionallly Associated with Homosexuality

Genesis 19:1-13; Leviticus 18:23; 20:13; Deuteronomy 23:17,18; I Kings 23:7; 15:12; 22:46; II Kings 23:7; Job 36:14;

Romans 1:26,27; I Corinthians 6:9,10; I Timothy 1:10; II Peter 2:2; Jude 7

Note: All references to biblical texts make use of the King James Version, except as noted. The use of brackets in quotations indicates words or punctuation supplied by the author of this study to facilitate a clearer reading. The integrity of the text quoted has not been compromised. The reader is invited to consult the source as often as possible.