Thursday, June 25, 2009

Highjacking a victims memory

It also rubs me the wrong way the way these so called "LDS," gay affirming groups evoke the name of Stuart Matis to play their "political card" in their efforts to lobby the church to change doctrine so that acting on homosexuality is no longer considered a sin.

This is just my opinion, but I don't know and I don't think anyone can really know what was going through Stuarts mind when he made that final tragic decision to end his life. For anyone to say they do is out of place. Yes, he may have left letters, but I don't think anyone can fully understand the thoughts that drove him to it. The closet thing that I can say is that I can relate to the frustration he felt as he struggled to live his life in a way that he believed pleased Heavenly Father, weighed against feelings and attractions that are real, but if acted on conflict with those beliefs. Many of us have been in that same desperate moment, but I think its also an individual experience. To say he did it because of Prop. 22 or anything else I think is really speculation or subjecture on the part of those who are trying to use him to lobby support for their own cause.

It is out of place on many facets. First, because now its between him and Heavenly Father and the Savior, who is the only one who can fully understand him. Secondly, I think that it is really cruel to his family when his name is shanghai-ed by people who never met him or who have only had limited contact with him but claim to be close friends with him. I personally believe that common decency would dictate that it is inappropriate for these groups to post suicide notes and letters as a means to "fight for a cause" when one would wonders if he would really have supported them in the first place, but who have used him as a means to evoke sympathy for their cause.

In addition, for these same groups to use the actions of a small misguided group of church members who do act inappropriately out of intolerance to judge the doctrine and main body of the church as intolerant is rather like judging every gay person by the sick displays of debauchery seen at many pride events.

Yes, I do believe that the Prophet was speaking on behalf of the Lord when in both cases he asked us to give our time, talents and best efforts to support Prop. 22 and in Prop. 8. Just because it may make me uncomfortable because it hits a personal cord in me, doesn't make the voice of the Prophet any less real or valid. But I also do believe that in so doing we also needed to show forth as much love and compassion for those who do struggle and not to be motivated by hatred and intolerance for people who do choose to use their agency in a way that goes against what we have been taught by the Lord through the Prophet to be correct.

I don't think anyone who struggles with SGA was happy that the church was involved in Prop. 22 or Prop. 8. in California. I'm not happy that the church has to get involved in anti-pornography campaigns or in programs that promote adoptions over abortions, but I also understand that sometimes it is necessary for the church to get involved in moral issues that do effect society as a whole and marriage is just that.

No comments: