How Are We Saved? (Part II)

In part one, I wrote about the idea of cleanliness.  I want to now look at our role and the role of the Savior, and what this means about a famously misunderstood scripture.  Nephi made the following statement:

For we labor diligently to write, to persuade our children, and also our brethren, to believe in Christ, and to be reconciled to God; for we know that it is by grace that we are saved, after all we can do. (2 Nephi 25:23)

I think that many people read too much into this scripture.  There is some kind of idea that we save ourselves partway and grace makes up the rest.  I don't believe that's what Nephi meant.  But he's right, we do have to do something.  We can't be saved unless we repent.  In part one, I used an analogy involving a child playing in the mud.  It is clearly impossible for such a child to clean their faces using their muddy hands.  The child's responsibility is to get out of the mud.  The parent with the hose does the actual cleaning.  Similarly, the atonement is what does the cleaning.  All our efforts to save ourselves are like a child trying to clean themselves using their muddy hands.  It gets nowhere.  But if the child refuses to leave the mud, the hose does little good.

All we can do is repent, and remove ourselves from situations that lead to sin.  The actual saving, that which cleanses us and makes us worthy, is done by the grace of Christ, through His atonement.  So Nephi is exactly right.  It is by grace we are saved, after all we can do.

How Are We Saved? (Part I)

When Amulek was teaching in Ammonihah, the need for a Savior became a point of contention.  What would the role of the Savior be, if He was even necessary?  We get this passage:

And Zeezrom said again: Shall he save his people in their sins? And Amulek answered and said unto him: I say unto you he shall not, for it is impossible for him to deny his word. (Alma 11:34)

Zeezrom takes great umbrage at this, asking what use would the Savior be if he didn't save the people.  But Amulek responds that God "said that no unclean thing can inherit the kingdom of heaven; therefore, how can ye be saved, except ye inherit the kingdom of heaven? Therefore, ye cannot be saved in your sins."

I hear similar ideas being bandied about today.  The concepts of worthiness and cleanliness are being portrayed as evil.  We all sin, so the thought goes, and we cannot be perfect in this life.  So the focus of the church on worthiness and cleanliness is destined to bring misery to its members who can never reach such lofty goals.  It's like Zeezrom's thought that a Savior that doesn't save the people in their sins doesn't do us much good.

But to those who read carefully, the answer to this conundrum becomes much clearer when several generations later, Helaman teaches his sons the following:

And remember also the words which Amulek spake unto Zeezrom, in the city of Ammonihah; for he said unto him that the Lord surely should come to redeem his people, but that he should not come to redeem them in their sins, but to redeem them from their sins.  (Helaman 5:10)

I love that scripture.  The way I think of it, imagine a child who wants to eat dinner, who is playing in the mud.  A parent has a hose with which to clean the child off.  But to clean up for dinner, the child must leave the mud.  The hose doesn't do much good if the child stays in the mud.  And the child will not be allowed to eat in such a filthy state.  Similarly, to be saved, we must repent, and leave our sins.  Yes, everyone sins, and we don't need to feel despair about having sinned.  However, we also shouldn't feel so comfortable in this sinful state that we remain there, and fail to achieve the blessings of the atonement.  Like the child, we need to get out of the mud so the hose can do its work.  That's what it takes to be worthy, to be clean.  We have to repent often and remove ourselves from sinful situations so the atonement of Christ can clean us.

Homo-

I'm sure lots of people have heard the news that a gentleman was fired from an English language learner site for an article about homophones.  Evidently, the owner didn't want to be associated with homosexuals.  My first question is why someone who teaches English doesn't know what a homophone is.  That's like a math teacher not knowing the definition of "quotient".

Then there is the inherent homophobia in this firing.  The owner is so afraid of homosexuality that he is disturbed by the use of the "homo-" prefix.  This reminds me of the man that had to quit his job because he used the word "niggardly" and people were offended by its similarity to a taboo word.

Anyway, here's a link to the article.  I enjoyed all the comments about homo sapiens and homogenized milk.

Language and Culture

I have always been extremely uncomfortable when people use terms such as "gay" and "fag" in the often heard derogatory manner.  They were extremely common terms in the vocabulary of my acquaintances at school when I was a high school student.  For someone with a gay orientation, I suppose my disdain for these terms is perfectly natural.  Stepping back, it's interesting to see what our language says about our culture.  While I think the term "homophobic" is tossed around haphazardly which dilutes its meaning, it still is a good word to describe a culture where "gay" and "fag" are used as swear words.

Other terms that were prevalent among high school students that seem to be growing in popularity, like the so-called "f-bomb" have strong sexual underpinnings, and are indicative of a society that tolerates sexual harassment and misogyny.  Recently I read an article decrying such a culture, but it was laced with f-bombs that made it hard for me to take the author seriously.  On the one hand, the author decried the sexism of institutions that protect sexual harassment, while on the other hand the author used language that is designed to shock through its sexual indecency.  It would be like saying "homophobia is so gay" or something like that.  If we want to change the culture, we need to change ourselves, including how we communicate.

Happily Ever After

In an interesting article (click here to read) a marriage counselor warns about the dangers of looking for prince charming in a relationship.  The article is giving advice mostly to straight women, but the principle is still the same.  One of the points he made really made sense to me.  He said that:

Both men and women need to look deeper into character, personality and compatibility to build a marriage with a happily ever after ending. Sure, you want to marry somebody who is attractive. But attractiveness is no basis for marriage.

I think this is true for any marriage, be it straight, gay, or mixed orientation.  This particular advice also helps explain how mixed orientation marriages can work.  They have to be based on character, personality, and compatibility.  That, along with a willingness to work for the relationship, is the basis of any happily ever after.

Risky Behavior

The problem with gathering data about those with homosexual orientations is the relative reluctance of many of us to identify as "gay" or "lesbian."  This leads to all kinds of biased data.  For instance, consider the following report from the CDC (click here).  In their study less than 2 percent of those studied identified as gay or lesbian, yet the percentage of people whose orientations are homosexual is usually considered to be much higher than that.  So what we have is an interesting bias.  In the study, we see much more risky behavior (smoking, binge drinking) among those who identify as gay than those who identified as straight.  But that's not too surprising due to the bias.  Many people consider coming out and admitting your orientation as a serious risk.  Gay-oriented people who are more risk-averse are therefore less likely to admit their orientation to others, and so more likely to be included with the straight individuals in this study.  In the end, what we really find in this study is that gay people who are less risk-averse are more likely to exhibit risky behavior.  Umm ... yeah.  We kind of knew that.  Until people feel more safe admitting their orientations, it is going to be really hard to get good data of any kind about those of us with gay orientations.

Male

I have always been very comfortable in my own skin.  One of my favorite qualities of myself is that I'm male.  I wouldn't have it any other way.  I know my wife feels the same way about being female, and I'm fine with that.  But I'm glad it's her and not me.

First, I hate makeup!  How can ladies stand putting in on and washing it off all the time?  I have to wear stage makeup when I'm acting in a play, and I detest it.  I always break out in a mild acne rash the week after a play.  I'm glad I'm not a woman.

Second, I really prefer a more constant level of hormones, rather than the monthly swing girls have to put up with.  In fact, almost everything about that monthly process makes me very glad I'm a guy.

Third, I relish the cultural leniency that guys have with wardrobe.  I can wear that same t-shirt that I've worn for years, even though there may be a hole or two developing, and I can say "it's just a guy thing" and get away with it.  (Well, until my wife throws it out when I'm not looking.)  I'm also very comfortable in a shirt and tie.  Let's just say, I like guy clothes.

Finally, I really just love being me, and I happen to be male.  I wouldn't want to change it.  Even my orientation is something that I love about myself.  I wouldn't want to have to change, and have to learn a whole new set of emotional adaptions to deal with girls.  I've already spent so much time and energy dealing with my attraction to guys.

Overall, I love being a boy.

Gender Identity

My orientation is gay, but to be clear, I identify quite strongly as male.  Since my physiological gender is male, that works very well for me.  I just happen to find other males attractive, rather than females.  I have no desire to dress in drag, nor do I find guys in feminine clothing to be remotely attractive.  I'm not attracted to girls, so dressing up as girls doesn't appeal to me.  So where does this cross-dressing thing come from?  I don't get it.

Please don't confuse this with those who are transgender, those who strongly identify as one gender, but are physiologically the other.  I don't think that's what's going on.  Or maybe it is.  For so long, people have mixed up gender identity with orientation.  Maybe it's because they get lumped together, LGBTQ and whatever new letters they are adding to the list.  I've heard that list referred to as "gender confusion" before, but that seemed really wrong to me.  I am not confused about my gender or that of others, and I'm definitely part of the G from the list.

Maybe people in the gay culture have cultivated a ritual of cross-dressing that has strong meaning to them, helping to set them apart from others, part of that gay-pride thing.  I could see something like that developing socially.  Still, it seems somehow wrong to me.  It's part of the gay culture that's always made me kind of uncomfortable.  Could someone explain it to me?

The Right to Be Crushed

Nothing bothers me more than the argument that a gay oriented man is somehow harming his wife if he marries a woman.  There's this weird idea of a right to have your spouse have a crush on you.  I detest this thinking largely because it leads to so much divorce among traditional heterosexual couples, let alone those with other orientations.  A natural consequence of this "right" is that when the honeymoon and glow of newlywed-ness wears off (and it will for almost every couple) it is time for the couple to consider divorce because their partner can no longer provide them with that crush.

I love the story of the poet Thomas Moore whose wife recovered from small pox, and wouldn't show her face because it was disfigured.  Thomas penned the lyrics to "Believe Me If All Those Endearing Young Charms" about how it doesn't matter how she looks; he will always love her.  That's what real love is, when the physical attractiveness is gone, the love is still there.

For my part, I never felt that fall from the honeymoon state in my own marriage.  I attribute it to the fact that I fell in love with my wife despite being attracted to men only, which means I didn't have the typical falling-out-of-attraction stage that many marriages go through.  I'm not saying I don't think my wife attractive, but my feelings for her developed as a whole rather than the common physical-first experience.

Granted, if a gay man was getting married to a woman simply because he felt obligated to do so, or because he wanted offspring, that is unlikely to be healthy.  And I would certainly expect anyone considering marriage to be honest with their prospective fiancé about their orientation.  But a marriage based on physical attraction is also unlikely to be healthy.  Some women feel that they need their spouse to be completely physically infatuated with them, and I agree that it's their choice.  Don't marry a gay man.  But don't be surprised and offended if your spouse sometimes finds others more physically attractive than you.  Like Thomas Moore's wife, it was something she had to get over, and realize that true love, in the end, has little to do with physical attractiveness.

Homophobia

The term "homophobia" gets tossed around an awful lot, and many instances don't make any sense.  This causes some people to reject the concept, since it is not  used consistently.  So, I thought I'd give some examples of what I believe to be homophobia, and examples of what is not.

1.  If someone believes that homosexual infidelity is somehow worse than heterosexual infidelity, then that is indeed homophobia.  For example, if a man cheating on his wife cheats with another man, is that worse than if he cheats with another woman?  I would consider those who believe so to be homophobic.

2.  If someone believes that homosexuality is a choice, and people need to choose to not be gay, then that is ignorance, not homophobia.  Sure, ignorance can lead to homophobia (and be fostered by it), but this belief by itself is simply a lack of knowledge of the truth.

3.  When a young man is so afraid of appearing gay that he always makes comments to support his masculinity, and avoids any physical contact with other males (or constantly says "no homo" when such contact occurs), then that is homophobia.  This can be particularly acute when the young man in question is, himself, attracted to other guys, but trying to hide it (perhaps hoping that his orientation will change).

4.  When someone fails to support or vote for a law legalizing gay marriage, that does not make them homophobic.  Such voting could be caused by homophobia, and often is; but by itself, being politically or religiously against gay marriage is not enough information to determine if the person is homophobic.

A final note: in my view, homophobia is different from bigotry, and they are both different from bias.  Everyone has biases.  That doesn't make them bigots.  Homophobia is a state of irrational fear of homosexuality.  Bigotry is showing unkindness to others because of they belong to some particular group.

Open Mindedness

One of the things that has always bothered me is the concept of open mindedness.  In most instances, it's use is equivalent to "you should be open to my opinion."  There is a ton of open mindedness in the world, but mostly it is shown by children.  They are open to all kinds of ideas.  As we become teenagers, we recognize how gullible we were, and reject all open mindedness and become very obstinate.  We close our minds and assume we finally really understand things.  After that, we usually open up a little and eventually settle down with some very fixed beliefs.  Those beliefs are then very resistant to change.  We feel that we have had to be open minded to reach our beliefs, and others who don't believe them just haven't been open minded enough to get there yet.  This makes discussion very difficult.

I find that there are a lot of people who believe that orientation is somehow a choice, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.  No amount of argument or logic will change that opinion, in most cases.  Similarly, I've seen people believe that anyone who opposes gay marriage legalization is a hardened bigot.  Neither side shows the least bit of open mindedness.  In order to be open minded, what is required is humility, respect, and charity for others.  When these are not present, an open mind is hard to come by, and real discussion is almost impossible.

Intellectual

As a child, I always tended toward intellectual pursuits.  I loved learning, and so loved school.  I was not very good at homework and tasks, but did very well when taking tests.  When in Jr. High, I had a friend with whom I would philosophize and debate.  He was particularly muscular and well built, but my feelings for him were purely platonic.  I only tended to get romantic feelings for guys I didn't know well.

Anyway, this friend told me once that he had read that the smarter someone was, the more likely they were to be homosexual.  I knew that we both considered ourselves quite intelligent, and was wondering if he was trying to come on to me.  I didn't really give a response to him and he never brought it up again.  I never thought of him as more than a friend, but have always been curious as to his meaning.  It's possible that he figured out my orientation, and was letting me know that it was okay.  But I never figured it out.

Since that time, I have never heard such a statistic relating intelligence and orientation.  Has anyone else heard such a thing?