178 replies to this topic

[Log]

cinepro, on 23 April 2012 - 12:10 PM, said:

Heterosexual church members have many avenues of accepted and appropriate heterosexual expression outside of marriage (and "sexual intimacy"), such as dating, dancing, hand holding, and kissing.

What are the accepted and appropriate expressions of homosexual affection for gay LDS?

You have a short memory.

[calmoriah]

cinepro, on 23 April 2012 - 12:10 PM, said:

Heterosexual church members have many avenues of accepted and appropriate heterosexual expression outside of marriage (and "sexual intimacy"), such as dating, dancing, hand holding, and kissing.

What are the accepted and appropriate expressions of homosexual affection for gay LDS?

How is refraining from homosexual behaviours automatically pretending one is heterosexual?  If one is not engaging in heterosexual or homosexual behaviours, then while others may assume one is heterosexual due to sheer probability, one is still not presenting oneself as heterosexual and therefore not pretending to be heterosexual or even not gay (one does not have to display outward behaviour of internal states).  The only conclusion that one can draw from observing someone engaging in celibate (as in total nonsexual, nonromantic, nonphysical) behaviour is that they are celibate unless more info is given.

Edited by calmoriah, 23 April 2012 - 02:39 PM.

[Jaybear]

calmoriah, on 23 April 2012 - 02:36 PM, said:

How is refraining from homosexual behaviours automatically pretending one is heterosexual?

To be fair, Cinepro said:

Quote

Gay LDS have always been able to find acceptance in the Church by pretending they aren't gay.

Which Smac deliberately miscontrued when he said:

Quote

I don't agree that celibacy = "pretending they aren't gay."

[smac97]

Jaybear, on 23 April 2012 - 12:22 PM, said:

I suspect that not all of those who participated in the video, would agree that the LDS Church is the best place to go "to figure out what to do next."  
That was not the point or purpose of the video.

Ya know, that's the vibe I got as well.  The purpose of the video doesn't seem to be pointing young Latter-day Saints to the precepts of the Restored Gospel.  As I said in the OP: "The subtext of this vid, then, appears to be 'ignore the prophets and listen to us instead.' If so, I find such a stance problematic. Church members should not set themselves up as voices of moral authority at odds with the priesthood leaders of the Church."

Thanks,

-Smac

[Sky]

I just finished watching the video, and I’m torn.  On the one hand, it is good to get this issue out in the open and express love towards our brothers and sisters who deal with this.  But I didn’t get the impression that they were trying to encourage LDS gays to live the law of chastity as taught by the Church.  While that may not be the easiest choice, I believe it will bring the most happiness in the end.

I mean, aren’t we taught that keeping the commandments of God is what will bring us the most happiness?  Does this somehow not apply if you are attracted to your own gender?

And the entire “It gets better” project is to help further the cause of the LGBT movement – so the argument can be made that it subtly encourages same-sex relationships.

[smac97]

Sky, on 23 April 2012 - 06:11 PM, said:

I just finished watching the video, and I’m torn.  On the one hand, it is good to get this issue out in the open and express love towards our brothers and sisters who deal with this.  But I didn’t get the impression that they were trying to encourage LDS gays to live the law of chastity as taught by the Church.

Yes, that's the vibe I got as well.  It's possible, of course, that the vid is intended as a "talk them down off the ledge" sort of exhortation, and that further advice would include encouragement to live the law of chastity.  I certainly hope so.

Quote

While that may not be the easiest choice, I believe it will bring the most happiness in the end

Agreed.  

Quote

I mean, aren’t we taught that keeping the commandments of God is what will bring us the most happiness?  Does this somehow not apply if you are attracted to your own gender?

Well, the ambiguity in in the vid allows for a yes or a no to that question.

Quote

And the entire “It gets better” project is to help further the cause of the LGBT movement – so the argument can be made that it subtly encourages same-sex relationships.

Yep.

Thanks,

-Smac

[cinepro]

calmoriah, on 23 April 2012 - 02:36 PM, said:

How is refraining from homosexual behaviours automatically pretending one is heterosexual?  If one is not engaging in heterosexual or homosexual behaviours, then while others may assume one is heterosexual due to sheer probability, one is still not presenting oneself as heterosexual and therefore not pretending to be heterosexual or even not gay (one does not have to display outward behaviour of internal states).  The only conclusion that one can draw from observing someone engaging in celibate (as in total nonsexual, nonromantic, nonphysical) behaviour is that they are celibate unless more info is given.

I agree.  I acknowledged both options being the current choice for gay LDS who desire acceptance in the Church.  They can either pretend they are heterosexual (by talking and acting as if they were interested in people of the opposite gender), or they can choose to present themselves as totally sexless, as if they were eunuchs.

These have always been their choices, and no matter how much we "talk" and tell them "it gets better", it looks like 100 years from now, they will still have only these two choices.  

The Church might become more open about acknowledging the difficulty of either choice, and LDS might say "Yay for the gay LDS who are either trying to act heterosexual or totally subsuming their desires for physical affection and intimate companionship!",  and we'll have books and firesides presented by gay LDS who have made either choice.

But I'm still not sure that's the "improvement" the gay LDS are looking for.  But maybe it is?  Maybe they just want people to acknowledge the difficulty of their predicament, and still love and accept them.  Maybe this would be a big improvement...?

Edited by cinepro, 24 April 2012 - 10:38 AM.

[calmoriah]

Quote

But I'm still not sure that's the "improvement" the gay LDS are looking for.

I would assume that the improvement a faithful LDS, whether gay or hetero, is looking for is being able to truly align his own will with God's, whatever that may mean for him.  Becoming humble enough to realize and accept that this may not be what we want for ourselves here and now and being willing to sacrifice that part of our self on the altar so that we may come closer to our eternal selves that exist as one with the Lord is part of becoming a true Saint.

Edited by calmoriah, 24 April 2012 - 11:31 AM.

[phaedrus ut]

cinepro, on 24 April 2012 - 10:28 AM, said:

I agree.  I acknowledged both options being the current choice for gay LDS who desire acceptance in the Church.  They can either pretend they are heterosexual (by talking and acting as if they were interested in people of the opposite gender), or they can choose to present themselves as totally sexless, as if they were eunuchs.

There is a third possibility.  God could stop making gay people.  That would eliminate the problem all together.

Phaedrus

[cinepro]

phaedrus ut, on 24 April 2012 - 01:50 PM, said:

There is a third possibility.  God could stop making gay people.  That would eliminate the problem all together.

Phaedrus

[cinepro]

calmoriah, on 24 April 2012 - 11:29 AM, said:

I would assume that the improvement a faithful LDS, whether gay or hetero, is looking for is being able to truly align his own will with God's, whatever that may mean for him.  Becoming humble enough to realize and accept that this may not be what we want for ourselves here and now and being willing to sacrifice that part of our self on the altar so that we may come closer to our eternal selves that exist as one with the Lord is part of becoming a true Saint.

That's not an "improvement."  That's exactly what they've already been trying to do for the last 182 years.  You can't do the same thing and call it an "improvement".

[calmoriah]

I am not talking about improvement in the Church (though that comes in time as members work on becoming closer to the Lord), I am talking about the improvement most meaningful to any personal, personal improvement.

IMO, faithful LDS are generally aware that the best thing they can do to change the world is to change themselves into the kind of human beings God has meant us to be, whatever it takes.

There are some it is true who think it's their calling to go out and change the world into what they want it to be, most thankfully are more prone to look closer by for something to work on.

Edited by calmoriah, 24 April 2012 - 03:15 PM.

[epiginosko]

I personally know four of the people in the video.  While I will say that most of them are advocates for the LGBT cause as well as marriage-equality, none of them are trying to openly refute the church's doctrines on the matter.  I think all four of them would agree that if you want to be an active Latter-Day Saint, maintain a temple recommend, serve in a calling, etc., then you choose to obey the law of chastity (along with tithing, word of wisdom, etc.)  However, I don't believe any of them feels the need to enforce the same covenants on non-members or those who choose to remain connected to the Mormon community but not live the lifestyle.  But, first and foremost, I believe that this message was intended towards those who are suicidal and is pointing them towards a specific non-church resource (the Trevor Project) where they can find help.

Is it the right thing to do?  I can't say.  It would be nice of the Priesthood Leaders came out with a correlated message on the matter, but until then these members did what they felt they could do to help.  I can't fault them for the effort.

[smac97]

epiginosko, on 24 April 2012 - 03:37 PM, said:

I personally know four of the people in the video.  While I will say that most of them are advocates for the LGBT cause as well as marriage-equality, none of them are trying to openly refute the church's doctrines on the matter.

The vid participants are not "openly" refuting the church's doctrines?  Tacitly, then?  Circuitously?  Secretively?  Are you admitting something here?

epiginosko, on 24 April 2012 - 03:37 PM, said:

I think all four of them would agree that if you want to be an active Latter-Day Saint, maintain a temple recommend, serve in a calling, etc., then you choose to obey the law of chastity (along with tithing, word of wisdom, etc.).

Yes.  "If."  But it sounds like these folks are also in favor of not obeying the Law of Chastity, since they support same-sex marriage, which would necessarily include behavior utterly prohibited by the Church, even if that behavior is allowed under secular law.

epiginosko, on 24 April 2012 - 03:37 PM, said:

However, I don't believe any of them feels the need to enforce the same covenants on non-members or those who choose to remain connected to the Mormon community but not live the lifestyle.

First, I reject the notion that living up to one's covenants can be described as a mere "lifestyle."

Second, the vid is not directed at non-members.  It is specifically directed at Latter-day Saints.  It is specifically directed at an audience all of whom have made covenants to God.  

Third, your comment here seems to confirm my concern about the vid: That the participants in the vid are not concerned about encouraging young Latter-day Saints to live in accordance with the precepts of the Restored Gospel.  That the participants in the vid view gospel covenants as optional, as things which can be dispensed with or disregarded.  

epiginosko, on 24 April 2012 - 03:37 PM, said:

But, first and foremost, I believe that this message was intended towards those who are suicidal and is pointing them towards a specific non-church resource (the Trevor Project) where they can find help.

Okay.

epiginosko, on 24 April 2012 - 03:37 PM, said:

Is it the right thing to do?  I can't say.  It would be nice of the Priesthood Leaders came out with a correlated message on the matter

Huh?  The Church Handbook of Instructions is rather clear on this:


Homosexual behavior violates the commandments of God, is contrary to the purposes of human sexuality, and deprives people of the blessings that can be found in family life and in the saving ordinances of the gospel. Those who persist in such behavior or who influence others to do so are subject to Church discipline. Homosexual behavior can be forgiven through sincere repentance.

If members engage in homosexual behavior, Church leaders should help them have a clear understanding of faith in Jesus Christ, the process of repentance, and the purpose of life on earth.

While opposing homosexual behavior, the Church reaches out with understanding and respect to individuals who are attracted to those of the same gender.

If members feel same-gender attraction but do not engage in any homosexual behavior, leaders should support and encourage them in their resolve to live the law of chastity and to control unrighteous thoughts. These members may receive Church callings. If they are worthy and qualified in every other way, they may also hold temple recommends and receive temple ordinances.

Affirmation, a "gay rights" group specifically for gay Mormons, has rather astonishingly presumed to instruct the Church that this language (which reflects recent changes to the CHI) does not go far enough because "the policies in the new Church Handbook of Instruction continue to class homosexual behavior as a choice and as a sin," and objects to the LDS Church teaching that "in order to be considered ‘worthy,’ an LGBT church member must refrain from all sexual activity throughout their life," and that "evidence has shown that being a lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender person is a biological function that takes place prior to birth – something that comes from God – and is not a choice, and therefore cannot rationally be considered a sin."

Again: "The policies in the new Church Handbook of Instruction continue to class homosexual behavior as a choice and as a sin."  (And notice the sleight of hand here: The Church clearly labels homosexual behavior as sin, but Affirmation tries to paint "being gay" as the sin.)

Affirmation is demanding that the LDS Church change its doctrines to conform to popular notions of sexual morality.  Affirmation is presuming to dictate doctrine to the LDS Church.

How many of the people in that vid are affiliated with Affirmation, I wonder?

epiginosko, on 24 April 2012 - 03:37 PM, said:

but until then these members did what they felt they could do to help.  I can't fault them for the effort.

Well, I can.  If they are sending an ambiguous message to young Latter-day Saints with SSA, and if within that ambiguity lies a suggestion that engaging in homosexual conduct is okay, and if that ambiguity was intentionally created to mask this suggestion, then I find fault with that.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited by smac97, 24 April 2012 - 10:23 PM.

[Senator]

smac97, on 24 April 2012 - 09:59 PM, said:

Okay.

Okay what? You agree? If you agree that the main thrust of the vid is to "talk people down off the ledge", then why do you keep harping on a perceived subtext which is of less importance.

Maybe we need to ask; which is the greater sin to someone on the ledge; to take one's own life, or, their homosexual behavior or even the mere contemplation of engaging in such behavior?

If you think driving home the line in the sand (the covenants and commandments of God, and their need and/or failure to comply with such) is an effective stategy to getting someone down off the ledge; then let me just say, please don't man a suicide hotline!

Edited by Senator, 25 April 2012 - 06:38 AM.

[Judd]

I think there are a number of different people in the video that, reading between the lines, probably have pretty varied opinions on the issue and may very well be saying different things. Those of whoever created the video, I would agree, are ambiguous. I think despite the movement within the church regarding homosexuality, there are many different opinions and goals that it's difficult to circumscribe all of them into one movement. That being said, I do wonder whether some of the recent efforts are for the sake of the gospel relative to homosexuality or if it is for the sake of homosexuality within the gospel.

Prior to this, the underlying assumption was that being homosexual and being a member of the church were at odds, simply because you never heard the stories of those who were still within the church as much as you heard those from without. In that sense, I think some of the 'movement' can be positive, but it appears with some that the goal is something else, in my opinion. Also, there are many people, both in and out of the church, who struggle with various issues that deeply affect their life, and sometimes we lose sight of that based on the bias of where contemporary political currents take our attention.

Edited by Judd, 25 April 2012 - 08:07 AM.

[smac97]

Senator, on 25 April 2012 - 06:31 AM, said:

Okay what? You agree?  If you agree that the main thrust of the vid is to "talk people down off the ledge", then why do you keep harping on a perceived subtext which is of less importance.

Because I find the subtext disturbing.  I think that living according to the Restored Gospel is the best course of action for all of God's children, even if it can be a difficult path.

Some Latter-day Saints have a greater struggle than others when it comes to living the Word of Wisdom.  We can and should express compassion for these people, but we don't wink-wink, nudge-nudge, hint-hint that obeying the Word of Wisdom is optional or unnecessary.

Some Latter-day Saints have a greater struggle than others when it comes to fidelity within marriage, or celibacy outside of marriage.  We can and should express compassion for these people, but we don't wink-wink, nudge-nudge, hint-hint that obeying the Law of Chastity is optional or unnecessary.

When it comes to homosexual conduct, there are growing societal forces at work actively working to legitimize such conduct.  Some of these efforts are aimed squarely at the LDS Church and its doctrines (see my previous comments about Affirmation for examples).  I think the vid participants, probably with varying degrees of awareness, are part of that movement.  And I find this movement incompatible with the Restored Gospel.  Some Latter-day Saints have a greater struggle than others when it comes to homosexual conduct.  We can and should express compassion for these people, but we don't wink-wink, nudge-nudge, hint-hint that obeying the Law of Chastity is optional or unnecessary.

The subject of the vid seems to be suggesting that living according to the Restored Gospel us optional, or even unnecessary.  And this subtext is being peddled by Latter-day Saints to other, vulnerable Latter-day Saints.

Senator, on 25 April 2012 - 06:31 AM, said:

Maybe we need to ask; which is the greater sin to someone on the ledge; to take one's own life, or, their homosexual behavior or even the mere contemplation of engaging in such behavior?

No, we don't need to ask that.  The answer is obvious.  And it's a false dichotomy.

But it's interesting that you bring this up.  Frankly, I dislike what I see as the GRM's (Gay Rights Movement) exploitation of gay suicides. Their websites and books trumpet these suicides as epidemic, as being caused by ostracism/homophobia (with no mention of other factors, including those possibly arising out of gay culture).

It comes across as cynical arm-twisting of a rather revolting sort. "Hey, Mormons! Either change your doctrines or I'll kill myself and blame you for it!"

Let me explain something about my views:

I have profound respect for women, but I reject the notion that respect for women necessarily includes an unfettered right to non-elective abortion.  Respect for women must start with respect for all women, including nascent ones (whom, according to recent reports, are disproportionately aborted precisely because of their gender).  

I have love and respect for people of all races, but I resent racialists who constantly frame discussion of humanity and humanity's problems in such terms and resent self-appointed leaders of racial groups who foment and create radial discord so as to further trade on it.  The recent "payback" incidents where whites and Hispanics have been targeted for brutal race-based violence as "justice for Trayvon" are just the most recent of numerous examples of this phenomenon.

I am deeply concerned about the plight of the poor in the United States, but I reject as a solution a permanent government-dependent welfare class.

I refuse to adhere to such extremist views, or to ignore them when they gain notoriety.

When it comes to people with SSA - and specifically young Latter-day Saints with SSA, I think it is tragic that some of these brothers and sisters are treated poorly by some because of that orientation.  And I am appalled and saddened that anyone would kill themselves for any reason, including despairing Latter-day Saints.  However, I firmly believe that homosexual conduct is not compatible with the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ. I also believe that there is a concerted effort to legitimize homosexual conduct and undermine any organization that feels differently. I also believe that this concerted effort bears substantial responsibility for inculcating vulnerable Latter-day Saints (those with same-sex attraction) with the notion that their orientation is either compatible with or superior in importance to the Restored Gospel.

And the further this discussion goes, the further I am coming to conclude that the vid participants, or some of them, are part of this effort.  I do not doubt their sincerity, only their profound lack of judgment.  In attempting to alleviate despair among young Latter-day Saints with SSA, I fear that these folks may be tacitly (for now) recommending a course of action that will only deepen that despair and lead young LDS away from the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ.

-Smac

Edited by smac97, 25 April 2012 - 07:38 AM.

[epiginosko]

smac97, on 24 April 2012 - 09:59 PM, said:

The vid participants are not "openly" refuting the church's doctrines?  Tacitly, then?  Circuitously?  Secretively?  Are you admitting something here?

No, I'm not making any subversive statements.  There is no question that these are socially liberal members.  Most here already know John Dehlin from his work on Mormon Stories.  He is an advocate for the LGBT community, and I don't think he has ever hidden that.  Many of the others in the video are part of the Mormon Stories umbrella non-profit group the Open Stories Foundation.

smac97, on 24 April 2012 - 09:59 PM, said:

Yes.  "If."  But it sounds like these folks are also in favor of not obeying the Law of Chastity, since they support same-sex marriage, which would necessarily include behavior utterly prohibited by the Church, even if that behavior is allowed under secular law.

I believe that they would argue that they support free agency, not compulsion of obedience - particularly when dealing with civil legislation which reaches beyond the general church membership.  

smac97, on 24 April 2012 - 09:59 PM, said:

First, I reject the notion that living up to one's covenants can be described as a mere "lifestyle."

Fair enough, but I think you missed my point.  By lifestyle, I mean everything from the word of wisdom, paying tithing, law of chastity, etc.  I could have spelled these out separately but instead opted for the generic term "lifestyle."  Perhaps that wasn't the best fit.  Perhaps it would have made morse sense to use a term such as "standards of the Church."  My apologies for the confusion.

smac97, on 24 April 2012 - 09:59 PM, said:

Second, the vid is not directed at non-members.  It is specifically directed at Latter-day Saints.  It is specifically directed at an audience all of whom have made covenants to God.

I believe it is even more narrow than that.  I believe it is specifically targeting gay Latter-Day Saints who are struggling with thoughts of suicide.  

smac97, on 24 April 2012 - 09:59 PM, said:

Third, your comment here seems to confirm my concern about the vid: That the participants in the vid are not concerned about encouraging young Latter-day Saints to live in accordance with the precepts of the Restored Gospel.  That the participants in the vid view gospel covenants as optional, as things which can be dispensed with or disregarded.

I can't comment on their individual motives.  I can only say that it seems clear to me that this video is more concerned about offering support for those gay members who are considering suicide.

smac97, on 24 April 2012 - 09:59 PM, said:

Huh?  The Church Handbook of Instructions is rather clear on this:

That is the church's policy.  What I was talking about is a discussion from the General Authorities specifically aimed at gay youth who are struggling with thoughts of suicide.  You don't talk them down from the ledge by quoting policy.

smac97, on 24 April 2012 - 09:59 PM, said:

Affirmation is demanding that the LDS Church change its doctrines to conform to popular notions of sexual morality.  Affirmation is presuming to dictate doctrine to the LDS Church.

How many of the people in that vid are affiliated with Affirmation, I wonder?

I don't know.  The one's who I personally know are not involved with Affirmation.

smac97, on 24 April 2012 - 09:59 PM, said:

Well, I can.  If they are sending an ambiguous message to young Latter-day Saints with SSA, and if within that ambiguity lies a suggestion that engaging in homosexual conduct is okay, and if that ambiguity was intentionally created to mask this suggestion, then I find fault with that.

You absolutely have the right to object if you don't feel that they have handled this in the appropriate way.  I would be interested in knowing how you would handle it differently?  Keep in mind that the target audience of this video is those members of the LDS community (most of whom are raised LDS and not converts) who have same-sex attraction and who struggle with depression and thoughts of suicide (many even going as far as attempting it) because they feel that they have disappointed their parents, their community, and that it would be better for them to be dead than gay.  What would your message be?

[smac97]

Quote

I believe that they would argue that they support free agency, not compulsion of obedience - particularly when dealing with civil legislation which reaches beyond the general church membership.

There is no "compulsion" at issue, except that people who take moral exception to homosexual conduct are gradually being compelled to accept it against their will.  There are many examples out there.

Quote

I can't comment on their individual motives. I can only say that it seems clear to me that this video is more concerned about offering support for those gay members who are considering suicide.

I think we can agree on that.  The question, however, is what kind of support they are offering.  

Quote

That is the church's policy. What I was talking about is a discussion from the General Authorities specifically aimed at gay youth who are struggling with thoughts of suicide. You don't talk them down from the ledge by quoting policy.

Okay.  I agree that such a talk would be a good idea.  However, I suspect that such a talk would be met with scorn and derision from the Gay Rights Movement.  As Affirmation has so amply demonstrated, the Gay Rights Movement is not calling for just compassion and understanding.  They are calling for capitulation, by the LDS Church, on its doctrines regarding sexual morality.

Quote

You absolutely have the right to object if you don't feel that they have handled this in the appropriate way. I would be interested in knowing how you would handle it differently?

That's a fair question.  I would handle it differently by ditching the subtext.  I would not proffer false hope to young Latter-day Saints with SSA (by implying that life "gets better" when homosexual proclivities are acted upon).  I would not present present a deliberately ambiguous message as regarding the standards of the Church and present it to other Latter-day Saints from another Latter-day Saint.

Quote

Keep in mind that the target audience of this video is those members of the LDS community (most of whom are raised LDS and not converts) who have same-sex attraction and who struggle with depression and thoughts of suicide (many even going as far as attempting it) because they feel that they have disappointed their parents, their community, and that it would be better for them to be dead than gay. What would your message be?

It would not be materially different from a message to a person contemplating suicide for any other reason.  

-Smac

Edited by smac97, 25 April 2012 - 08:51 AM.

[Senator]

smac97, on 25 April 2012 - 07:24 AM, said:

Because I find the subtext disturbing.  I think that living according to the Restored Gospel is the best course of action for all of God's children, even if it can be a difficult path.

I agree. But that's irrelevant to my point. I am addressing how to handle people that are on the ledge. Your "okay" to these statements appears to be disengenuous, because you are quite sure the subtext is really the main text. I disagree.

I see the vid as speaking to LDS gays that are mature in dispare, that are on the ledge. What such people need at that moment in there lives is not the law of the gospel by the mercy of the gospel. Get them down of the ledge first, the tool of choice ( which was masterfully wielded in the vid) is the safety of a pair of outstretched arms bathed in unconditional love.

If the vid is successful in diverting even one soul from prematurely departing this life, then I deem it priceless, and couldn't give a rats a$$ to any perceived sub agendas.

Edited by Senator, 25 April 2012 - 09:06 AM.