My temple recommend interview

[Katzpur]

I had an interesting temple recommend interview today. This was one of about a dozen questions that are routinely asked, and this is an abbreviated version of the conversation went when I responded to that question:

Bishop: Do you support, affiliate with, or agree with any group or individual whose teachings or practices are contrary to or oppose those accepted by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?

Me: I'd have to say that I'm quite a bit more liberal than most members of the Church, bishop.

Bishop (looking slightly surprised to hear this response): "Okay? Uh...?"

Me: Well, for starters, I have no objections to same-sex marriage.

Bishop: Uh huh.

Me: Would you like me to elaborate?

Bishop: Would you like to?

Me: Well, having said what I just did, I guess I probably ought to. Um... (pausing to collect my thoughts and decide how I was going to word this). Well, I believe that in God's eyes, marriage to is be between a man and a woman. I don't believe the Church should ever have to start performing same-sex marriages or issue temple recommends to same-sex couples. On the other hand, I am absolutely in favor of the separation of church and state. I believe all individuals are entitled to their civil rights -- including the rights that heterosexual married couples have, simply because they are married. Rights like insurance benefits, end-of-life decisions, etc.

Bishop: I agree!

Me: (wondering if I heard him correctly). What I'm trying to say is that I see marriage from two different perspectives, and I would use the words "holy matrimony" and "civil unions" to describe how I see marriage, depending upon is involved.

Bishop: Uh huh. I agree. I definitely believe we are all entitled to the same civil rights. The problem -- when you use the word "marriage" -- seems to be one of semantics. People can't seem to agree what terminology is acceptable. I do know how you feel about this, Susan (not my real name, as most of you know). I know you and Cheryl marched in last year's Pride Parade with Mormons Building Bridges.

Me: Uh, yes. How did you know that?

Bishop: It was on your Facebook page.

Me: Oh yeah, that's right.

Bishop: It's okay, really. Just make sure people know what it is you're standing for.

Me: Well, I try not to get into it with people. I don't want people judging me.

Bishop: You need to get into it with people. Not everybody thinks as deeply as you do. So many members of the Church don't even know what they believe or why.

Me: Well, when the subject comes up, I'll talk about it. You do understand why I marched, don't you?

Bishop: In support of their civil rights, I assume.

Me: Well, not really. I believe they are entitled to these rights, but if that's why I'd been marching, I'd have marched with Mormons for Equality (which has been actively pushing for same-sex marriage for years). I basically agree with what they're doing, but I didn't march with them. I marched with Mormons Building Bridges to make a different kind of statement. In this group of over 400 LDS marchers, one person was holding up a sign containing the words to a Primary (i.e. Mormon children's group) song: "Jesus turned away from none. He showed His love to everyone." I'm sick and tired of how members of the Church look down on gays and how they treat them. Lots of people were marching because they have a son who is gay or a sister who is lesbian. I was marching for the gay Mormon who has nobody.

Bishop: You're awesome. (or something very similar -- I don't want to put words in his mouth, but it was along those lines). I love you, Susan.

Me: I really appreciate your saying that, bishop. It means a lot to me. I just have a really hard time believing that it's our place to be imposing punishments on people whose moral choices are different from ours. And I can't help feeling the way I do.

Bishop: I know what you're saying. No, we shouldn't be punishing them. We shouldn't even be judging them.

Me: You know, I've marched twice. The first year, on the way down to the parade, I kept thinking, "What would my bishop think?" By the time the parade was half over, I was thinking, "Who cares what my bishop thinks. I know what my Heavenly Father thinks, and he's fine with this."

Bishop: So's your bishop.

Me: I'm really glad to hear that. I was afraid you might tell me to go home and repent. This isn't something I can repent of. It's what's in my heart.

Bishop: You have nothing to repent of.



Note: This interview lasted about 45 minutes. I haven't loved a bishop as much as I love this bishop in a very, very long time.

 

[Scott C.]

Great guy! But I hope you didn't make him have this chat during the Super Bowl.

 

[Katzpur]

Great guy! But I hope you didn't make him have this chat during the Super Bowl.

Do I look stupid?

 

[Valjean]

Awesome!
I wonder what the Bishop had in mind when he asked you in for the interview. Did he suspect you of heresy?

One point from your post I'd question, though:

Me: I really appreciate your saying that, bishop. It means a lot to me. I just have a really hard time believing that it's our place to be imposing punishments on people whose moral choices are different from ours. And I can't help feeling the way I do.

You imply that homosexuality is a moral choice, rather than a neural variation.

 

[Katzpur]

Awesome!
I wonder what the Bishop had in mind when he asked you in for the interview. Did he suspect you of heresy?

Oh, no. As you probably know, we have to have a "Temple Recommend" in order to go to the temple (which, as you probably also know, is different from just going to church). The recommend is good for two years. After that, it expires. Mine had expired at the end of January. My new one will be good for two more years, at which time I'll need to go in for another "Temple Recommend Interview." There is a list of about a dozen questions you're asked to determine whether you will be granted a recommend or not. This question was just one of many, but was the only one that had been, you might say, "weighing on me."

One point from your post I'd question, though:

You imply that homosexuality is a moral choice, rather than a neural variation.

No, I definitely do not believe that homosexuality is a moral choice. I don't think people choose to be gay any more than they choose to be straight, any more than they choose to be born blond or brunette. As a matter of fact, whenever a fellow Mormon talks of homosexuality as something a person chooses, I ask him/her to tell me what went into his/her decision to be straight. I ask if he/she weighed the pros and cons of being straight vs gay and made a decision based on the outcome of the analysis. I ask if when he/she had his/her first crush on someone of the opposite sex, if it was because he/she knew those feelings were the appropriate ones. Needless to say, the discussion usually doesn't go a whole lot further.

When I used the words "moral choice," I was thinking in terms of actions as opposed to attraction. It is the position of the LDS Church that a LGBT person can be a "member in good standing" as long as he or she is celibate. Actually, a celibate gay man who was in an LDS bishopric in San Francisco until recently has a blog about his experience. So the Church says that while you may have no choice in who you are attracted to, you do have a choice as to whether or not you act on the attraction you feel. By the same reasoning, the Church would have pretty much the same view of an unmarried heterosexual couple that was sexually active. If I were unmarried, I would be expected to remain celibate. I would probably be trying to do so. Who knows whether or not I'd have been successful. So, when I used the phrase "people whose moral choices are different from ours," I was meaning people who are unmarried but sexually active. In the context of our conversation this would be gays and lesbians. A gay or lesbian who made the decision to be celibate would be making the moral choice expected of him by the Church. Make sense?

 

[Scott C.]

I like this:

LDS leader uses family as example of harmony between church, gays - KUTV -

 

[Katzpur]

I like this:

LDS leader uses family as example of harmony between church, gays - KUTV -

Now that's good news! It doesn't surprise me to think that Elder Christofferson would be close to his gay brother. What surprises me is that his brother and his brother's partner attend their local ward, and are apparently accepted. I would venture a guess that in that particular ward, the overall attitude towards gays is much more accepting than in most wards. I mean when the two of them started attending, I can imagine that there was a lot of talk. "Those two guys on the sixth row... they're gay." Then, when they realized that one of them was the brother of an Apostle, their attitude may have changed from disdain to curiosity. And then, over time, I suspect they've come to realize that, in all but one respect, these two men are just like every other man in the ward. Of course this is all just a guess, but it certainly does seem likely to me.

Homosexuality is not an uncommon thing, and as more high-profile members of the Church, like Elder Christofferson, show by their example that they do not find gays disgusting human beings to be avoided at all costs, other people will come around. I definitely got the impression that Elder Christofferson's brother's partner is welcome at family gatherings, although that was not explicitly stated. It just sounds as if the whole family is loving and accepting. (I'd kind of wondered why Elder Christofferson was selected to be a part of the news conference. Now I know why.)

 

[jchristopher]

Do you support, affiliate with, or agree with any group or individual whose teachings or practices are contrary to or oppose those accepted by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?

The way I see it, your answer to this question was really a No. But just as your Bishop mentioned, I too believe it to be important that others understand the message you are trying to send, assuming it is not in contradiction to the restored gospel.

I have no objections to same-sex marriage.

I'm assuming you do have objections to same-sex marriage and that you believe it to be in contradiction to God's plan, but also that it is not contrary to His plan for others to be at liberty to choose for themselves how they will live, and that their civil liberties should not be infringed nor should they be persecuted for it. Am I right?

 

[Katzpur]

I'm assuming you do have objections to same-sex marriage and that you believe it to be in contradiction to God's plan, but also that it is not contrary to His plan for others to be at liberty to choose for themselves how they will live, and that their civil liberties should not be infringed nor should they be persecuted for it. Am I right?

I'd say that's actually an excellent way of putting it.

Here's what's interesting. At the end of the interview, when the bishop was signing my recommend, I said, "Bishop, do I need to go through this whole thing all over again with the Stake President?" He answered, "No, not if you don't want to. But if you do want to, if you want confirmation from someone else that you're worthy, be sure you get your interview with [the stake president] and not with either of his counselors. I feel strongly that he (the stake president) would respond to your concerns exactly the same way I have. The other two... well, probably not."

I thought that was an odd bit of advise, but I think when I go in tomorrow evening for the signature of someone in the stake presidency, I'll just answer the question, "No," since my bishop seemed to think that would be an honest answer on my part.

 

[Orontes]

[QUOTE="Katzpur, post: 4148908, member: 2540

No, I definitely do not believe that homosexuality is a moral choice. I don't think people choose to be gay any more than they choose to be straight, any more than they choose to be born blond or brunette. [/QUOTE]

Do you feel this way with all sexualities or only with the gay and straight identifications?

 

[Katzpur]

.

Do you feel this way with all sexualities or only with the gay and straight identifications?

Unless I'm misunderstanding you, yes.

 

[Orontes]

Unless I'm misunderstanding you, yes.

To clarify my question more: there is a vast sea of sexual orientations, do you feel the same about sexualities toward say children, or sheep, or shoes? Would you say yes to all sexualities?

 

[Katzpur]

To clarify my question more: there is a vast sea of sexual orientations, do you feel the same about sexualities toward say children, or sheep, or shoes? Would you say yes to all sexualities?

Ugh. I pretty much expected something like this from you.

(As if it even needs clarifying), I do not believe that an adult should be able to be marry a child, a sheep or a shoe. A shoe? Come on now. I'm talking about two consenting adults who want to make a lifelong commitment to one another.

 

[Orontes]

Ugh. I pretty much expected something like this from you.

(As if it even needs clarifying), I do not believe that an adult should be able to be marry a child, a sheep or a shoe. A shoe? Come on now. I'm talking about two consenting adults who want to make a lifelong commitment to one another.

My question wasn’t about marriage. My question was about sexuality. Your earlier statement was you didn’t believe homosexuality was a moral choice. You compared it to hair color. I was asking if you hold the same view about all sexuality, or only the homosexual and straight orientations. I gave examples in the last post of some of the wide array of sexual orientations that exist to help clarify. What is your view?

 

[Nerthus]

So cool to have a bishop like that!

 

[Katzpur]

My question wasn’t about marriage. My question was about sexuality. Your earlier statement was you didn’t believe homosexuality was a moral choice. You compared it to hair color. I was asking if you hold the same view about all sexuality, or only the homosexual and straight orientations. I gave examples in the last post of some of the wide array of sexual orientations that exist to help clarify. What is your view?

Excuse me, but are you suggesting that it is possible to be sexually attracted to shoes?

 

[Katzpur]

So cool to have a bishop like that!

Yes, he is awesome! But he's not the only one. At the end of the interview, I asked my bishop if my elaboration to him was sufficient or if I'd need to go over it again with my Stake President. He told me I wouldn't need to do that unless I really wanted to but that, if I did, he pretty much knew the Stake President would also be okay with my answer. Both of them are truly great men in my opinion. And it gives me hope for the future.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Bishop: You're awesome. ... I love you, Susan.

Hope you don't mind a Jew butting in here, but I couldn't agree more. If convenient, please tell this Bishop that he has my respect.

 

[Orontes]

Excuse me, but are you suggesting that it is possible to be sexually attracted to shoes?

Yes. There is shoe fetishism, also known as retifism. I used it as one example of the vast array of sexualities that exist. Since you hold that homosexuality is fixed, where there is no choice in the matter, but something one is born with/as (like hair color), I was curious if you hold that view for sexuality as such, or whether homosexuality is special in this regard.

 

[Apex]

Yes. There is shoe fetishism, also known as retifism. I used it as one example of the vast array of sexualities that exist. Since you hold that homosexuality is fixed, where there is no choice in the matter, but something one is born with/as (like hair color), I was curious if you hold that view for sexuality as such, or whether homosexuality is special in this regard.

A fetish and a person's sexuality are not necessarily the same thing.