had the major set back of being self reporting, retrospective, and often from those that were already seeking therapy (it would be hard to find those who really prefer to remain aloof)...major problem in my book).
Yes, those that do work may have no incentive to participate...you could be right about that. Also, it could very well be that some who are in these relationships, don't want anyone (including their wife and children) to know their orientation. I do see Weed's situation as advantageous, in that he has been very open about his orientation. I would guess that is not usually the case....not until everything is falling apart.
One of the great things about the post was that he and his wife explained specifically why it worked for them. They also acknowledged that their way wouldn't necessarily work for everyone else, and specifically are not touting it as a cure-all.
Interestingly enough, the principles he talks about in his blog apply to all marriages. If you and your spouse are committed to follow those principles, you have a statistically significant chance of success in your marriage. If you don't have that commitment and perspective, your chances of succeeding are diminished. This is true of any marriage.
What I found most profound was his insight into attraction and intimacy, and how the latter can be directed with the proper perspective. Again, the principle here is applicable not only to his case, but to straight marriages also.
The key to this is that it works for them and it works well. I suspect strongly that there are more couples out there who are like this; we don't hear about them because they (like anyone else) value their privacy and feel that the intimacy in their relationships is private, in their cases. The Weeds evidently felt prompted to share their experience and are doing so without any particular agenda, other than to present something that is working well for them.
Rather than fear what they are presenting here, I feel that their story should be approached with hope. There are a variety of workable options out there; while they might not all work for everybody, those who feel prompted to attempt such a relationship should be supported and encouraged to be successful.
Before you criticize someone, you should walk a mile in their shoes. That way, when you criticize them, you’re a mile away and you have their shoes. - Jack Handey, "Deep Thoughts"
I don't know, I'm quite curious about how accurate that actually is. I've been reading a number of similar blogs and this is certainly among the peachier ones, but it's also made me wonder how many of these stories we actually get to hear.
It is possible that we do not hear more of these stories because marriage is just so darned hard.
I was going to give some real life examples but have decided that even my disguised stories revealed too much. So I am not going to very adequately support this point but I think a really successful marriage is so hard that while there may be a fair number of couples like the one in this story (can't be too rare as I know such couples) they may be in the same situation that many regular marriages are in -- struggling to keep things working.
In those cases we might not hear much. Yet they might be every bit as successful as other marriages and yet not feel quite like they can hold themselves out as an example.
I wish I could give some of the personal examples I have but I feel that even if I entirely disguise the people involved, they would feel it was a breech of trust that I shared anything at all, especially in a public forum. However, I feel that there may be more of these marriages around than is obvious.
Incidentally, I remember hearing that when Gwinneth Paltrow talked to her dad about the strength of her parent's marriage he said "Its just that neither one of us wanted to get a divorce at the same time!"
No worries, when I say peachier, I mean a whole lot peachier. One blog went over a number of years and entailed a man, coming out after years of marriage, and preceding to struggle with serious depression and suicidal ideation. He came out the other end still married and experiencing great joys...but not without a good amount of pain that made him question just about everything from his faith, his marriage, his hopes, and himself. I found it beautiful in the end, but no where near easy. So I could imagine other difficult stories.
Deep down I just wish I could know them all...people's decisions and reasoning always intrigues me...but then again, that's probably why I've chosen my major and hopeful career path.
With luv,
BD
We do not see things as they are, we see them as we are.
For as their laws and their governments were established by the voice of the people, and they who chose evil were more numerous than they who chose good, therefore they were ripening for destruction, for the laws had become corrupted. (Helaman 5:2}
Yet they might be every bit as successful as other marriages and yet not feel quite like they can hold themselves out as an example.
And some may be reluctant to share stories without being able to say they have been "cured" or reached a point of no return to temptation, etc.....which probably never happens when it comes to major shortcomings that people have no matter what they are, put on the right stressors and the temptations will be tempting again.
When you climb up a ladder, you...begin at the bottom...ascend step by step, until you arrive at the top...so it is with the principles of the Gospel--you must begin with the first...go on until you learn all the principles of exaltation. But it will be a great while after you have passed through the veil before you will have learned them. It is not all to be comprehended in this world. Joseph Smith
They may not lack the faith, maturity, and discipline that God or any other reasonable personable would expect from a human being with that sort of trial.
The problem with this logic is that it buys into the self-serving (and ultimately, self-destructive) notion that we are expected to endure and overcome all temptations except those currently regarded as fashionable or politically correct.
The idea is un-biblical, anti-Christian, and frankly, a heresy and a damnable lie.
We have been given both specific commandments and diverse temptations, with the knowledge and expectation that we will (ultimately) overcome them with Christ's help (and Grace).
We have been commanded to be obedient in all things- and there are no loop holes for sins that are "too hard" to overcome or areas that are "exempt" from the commandment, "Be ye therefore perfect."
The cocaine addict is expected to overcome his addiction.
The thief is expected to overcome his temptation.
The liar and the gossip are expected to overcome their weakness.
The smoker is expected to overcome his affliction.
The lecher is expected to remain chaste and faithful to his wife (or her husband).
So why should those who lean towards homosexual feelings expect a "free pass" on their predilection?
Quote
For example, I could require that all of you eat nothing but apples for the rest of your life, and if you don't, I could blame it on your lack of faith, maturity and self-discipline.
And you would be correct to do so- if you had any authority at all to require anything of us.
You do not.
God does.
If God (that's not you, BTW) were to require us to eat nothing but apples for the rest of our lives, our adherence to that commandment would (in fact) be a valid measure of our faith, maturity and self-discipline. In that respect, it's no different than the Word of Wisdom.
This really isn't that hard: it's a binary solution set.
0) You are striving to obey the law.
1) You are striving to exempt yourself from the law.
This couple has adopted the first choice, and we wish them every success and blessing in their endeavor.
You appear to be advocating for the second choice.
Quote
What I am saying is, God will judge accordingly...
True- but God will not accept "Hey men, it's cool cuz Verum told me you were like totally okay with it." as justification for behavior that he has declared to be sin.
Quote
...and while many people do lack maturity and self-discipline, its unreasonable to blame peoples shortcomings as the reason why they didn't live up to the way one particular person dealt with his/her trial, especially as it relates to something so complex such as sexual orientation.
Ironically, however, we are not talking about "one person's example" or "some people's expectations". We are (instead) talking about eternal law- and the couple whose example you are determined to obviate or question is closer to fulfilling eternal law than the alternatives you are hedging about.
Whether this couple (or others) ultimately succeeds or fails, they are at least striving to fulfill the law to the best of their knowledge and abilities.
That's a far better eternal solution than "Dear God: Your way is just too darn hard- so you'll just have to accept me the way I am."
I understand your position, selek, and that is the church's position, so from that perspective, everything you said makes sense. But, it does, pretty much, come down to a matter of belief and faith. I do not, personally, believe that God has anything to do with a ban on SS relationships. I believe that came from an ancient culture, not from God. I come from a background in psychology that tells me these mixed relationships are usually a disaster...so, I am, therefore, concerned when I see them "encouraged".
I do not, personally, believe that God has anything to do with a ban on SS relationships. I believe that came from an ancient culture, not from God.
Upon what evidence do you base this belief?
Quote
I come from a background in psychology
Ah..yes, of course. "When men are learned they think they are wise".
Quote
that tells me these mixed relationships are usually a disaster...so, I am, therefore, concerned when I see them "encouraged".
One must also consider that most same-sex relationships are even more so, with rampant infidelity, promiscuity, and double or even triple the instances of domestic abuse and other attendant ills- all of which can be chalked up to selfishness, immaturity, or lack of self-discipline by one or both partners.
Quote
Very different perspectives.
I quite agree.
Of course it needs to be pointed out that the couple in question is coming from the same religious/theological foundation that I am and reiterated that they do not claim this is a "one-size-fits-all" solution.
But then again, neither they nor I are frequenting a secular board shilling for religious law, either.
Verum's commentary was offered within a religious framework and attempted (however poorly) to address how religious law is (or at least should be in Verum's opinion) applied.
Within that context and framework, Verum's position is flat-wrong.
Even when one approaches this matter from a purely secular point of view, Verum's comments make little sense.
Quote
...the fact of the matter is that even the most disciplined, faithful latterday saints who are homosexual may not be able to navigate a successful, heterosexual marriage and family, and its not because they necessarily lack discipline or faith.
Note here that Verum offers the opinion that disciplined and faithful Saints with homosexual tendencies might not be able to "successfully navigate" a heterosexual marriage- but doesn't trouble to specify why that might be.
Let's look at this logically for a moment: assuming that the Latter-day Saint is disciplined and faithful (as Verum states), why might the marriage founder?
What would cause a marriage between two such people to fail?
The list of possible causes is extensive, but ultimately finite. So let's look at just a few (common) cause for most divorces:
Adultery: one (or both) partners is unfaithful to their marriage vows. How can this be described as anything other than a want of self-discipline? It was selfish lust that tempted David into taking Bathsheba. Why would it be any different had he lusted instead after Uriah?
John Edwards has been much in the news as of late. He cheated on his wife and the mother of his children even as she was dying of cancer. Whose needs and desires do you think he was serving?
And what of the baby-momma who bore his illegitimate love-child? Was she thinking of the consequences to the Edwards family? Or is it more likely she was indulging her own appetites?
Failed Expectations/The Seven Year Itch: Many folks today have a foolish and unrealistic expectation that marriage will be one unending roller-coaster of bliss and fulfillment- and too often, once the happiness has worn off, they want a divorce. The reality, of course, is far different. Those who have realistic and reasonable expectations of what a marriage actually entails (including the couple in the OP) have a far better chance of succeeding than those who do not. And yet, what can be said of those who throw away their spouses because of weight gain, greying hair, or "the bloom is off the rose" except that they are either selfish or lack self-discipline?
Is a man who divorces his wife because she gains thirty-five pounds justified?
Is he justified in discarding her when post-partum depression hits and their sex life dwindles?
Is he justified in discarding his wife of twenty-five years because his twenty-something secretary just got gallon-sized silicon implants (and the back problems that go with)?
Is a wife justified in abandoning her husband because the pool boy has better abs or because the cable repair man has a nicer car?
Of course not. And the motive in each of those cases is the same: selfishness and lack of self-discipline.
Most wedding vows today still include the words "for better or worse, in sickness and in health, till death do us part."
Not one of them says, "until you're boring in bed", "until I decide to have a mid-life crisis", or "till the milkman wins the lottery and has more money than you."
The bottom line is this: unless you were forced to marry or otherwise deprived of your agency, then you are stuck.
I cannot think of a single reason for a marriage to fail that does not ultimately imply a want of maturity, self-discipline, and faith.
Ah..yes, of course. "When men are learned they think they are wise".
Ouch. You can be unmerciful, at times. That particular verse, in the Book of Mormon, touched me deeply, the first time I read it. It still does. I do believe, most of us, too often, rely on our own understanding, rather than taking it to God. That happens, not to be the case, for me, on this issue. I don't often claim to "know" many things, but on this issue, I am as certain, as anyone can be.
Quote
One must also consider that most same-sex relationships are even more so, with rampant infidelity, promiscuity, and double or even triple the instances of domestic abuse and other attendant ills- all of which can be chalked up to selfishness, immaturity, or lack of self-discipline by one or both partners.
I don't want to address this here, but needless to say, we would have some serious disagreements and issues here.
Quote
I quite agree.
Of course it needs to be pointed out that the couple in question is coming from the same religious/theological foundation that I am and reiterated that they do not claim this is a "one-size-fits-all" solution.
Yes, of course. I am not criticizing the relationship. That is their business and I do, sincerely, wish them well.
Quote
But then again, neither they nor I are frequenting a secular board shilling for religious law, either.
Ah, so I shouldn't even be here, giving my "secular" opinion.
Quote
Verum's commentary was offered within a religious framework and attempted (however poorly) to address how religious law is (or at least should be in Verum's opinion) applied.
Within that context and framework, Verum's position is flat-wrong.
I'll let you take that up with him. I didn't mean to speak for him. Just commenting, in general.
But you should be quite a bit more reticent about playing the "that's just a silly superstition/personal religious belief" card.
Well, we seem to be missing one another, entirely, because the above is not what I said, either. I said nothing about "silly superstition".. As for "personal religious belief", that seems to be where all of us are coming from...which was a part of my point (about coming from different perspectives). My opinion is not purely secular. I believe in God and I even hold some beliefs in common with you. This just doesn't happen to be one of them.
Quote
I wouldn't attempt to persuade a group of secular psychologists of the merits of my belief by touting religious law.
That's fine. As I said, my beliefs are not purely secular...not on this issue or any other.
Quote
Nor will you make much headway on a Mormon theological board by being dismissive (however subtly) of the Church's official teachings.
I'm not dismissive of the church's teachings. I said, I recognize that as where you are coming from, selek. Don't put words in my mouth. I don't expect the church is going to change on my account. I am simply expressing my opinion (which, I freely recognize and admit, is out of sync with church teachings, on this subject).
The problem with this logic is that it buys into the self-serving (and ultimately, self-destructive) notion that we are expected to endure and overcome all temptations except those currently regarded as fashionable or politically correct.
The idea is un-biblical, anti-Christian, and frankly, a heresy and a damnable lie.
We have been given both specific commandments and diverse temptations, with the knowledge and expectation that we will (ultimately) overcome them with Christ's help (and Grace).
We have been commanded to be obedient in all things- and there are no loop holes for sins that are "too hard" to overcome or areas that are "exempt" from the commandment, "Be ye therefore perfect."
The cocaine addict is expected to overcome his addiction.
The thief is expected to overcome his temptation.
The liar and the gossip are expected to overcome their weakness.
The smoker is expected to overcome his affliction.
The lecher is expected to remain chaste and faithful to his wife (or her husband).
So why should those who lean towards homosexual feelings expect a "free pass" on their predilection?
And you would be correct to do so- if you had any authority at all to require anything of us.
You do not.
God does.
If God (that's not you, BTW) were to require us to eat nothing but apples for the rest of our lives, our adherence to that commandment would (in fact) be a valid measure of our faith, maturity and self-discipline. In that respect, it's no different than the Word of Wisdom.
This really isn't that hard: it's a binary solution set.
0) You are striving to obey the law.
1) You are striving to exempt yourself from the law.
This couple has adopted the first choice, and we wish them every success and blessing in their endeavor.
You appear to be advocating for the second choice.
True- but God will not accept "Hey men, it's cool cuz Verum told me you were like totally okay with it." as justification for behavior that he has declared to be sin.
Ironically, however, we are not talking about "one person's example" or "some people's expectations". We are (instead) talking about eternal law- and the couple whose example you are determined to obviate or question is closer to fulfilling eternal law than the alternatives you are hedging about.
Whether this couple (or others) ultimately succeeds or fails, they are at least striving to fulfill the law to the best of their knowledge and abilities.
That's a far better eternal solution than "Dear God: Your way is just too darn hard- so you'll just have to accept me the way I am."
Selek, I think you are completely missing the point and are taking my responses out of context. My comments were in response to the idea that church members may take this person's specific experience as the ideal path, which is to enter into a heterosexual marriage even though they are homosexual. I am not advocating that God should "exempt some from the law" and allow gay mormons to enter same-sex relationships, what I am saying is people who are gay but choose not to enter into a heterosexual marriage as this person in the article should not be viewed as those who lack self-discipline, faith, or maturity, as others seemed to have suggested here. The expectation that a homosexual (yes, a homosexual, not someone with "feelings" or "temptations) should have more faith and discipline to ultimately enter into a heterosexual relationship is unreasonable and not something God would advocate. The pinnacle path for a gay Mormon should not be to ultimately strive for a heterosexual marriage because the risks are very high and the consequences can be heartbreaking. This is why church leaders have now been counseled to not push for this option. Some may choose it on their own and be successful, and that is their choice that we should all respect if it ultimately makes them happy.
God will judge people differently based on their innate characteristics, environments, etc. We know this is the case since scriptures clearly teach that "for unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required." Let's leave the judgment to God and take to heart the words of Elder Uchtdorf "We simply have to stop judging others and replace judgmental thoughts and feelings with a heart full of love." We can encourage and invite people to take certain paths, but we should leave the judgment to God when someone chooses to take a different one.
At the end of the day, I am glad this article opens up more open dialogue about a difficult subject and I appreciate the diverse experience he shares that can help others have hope.
church members may take this person's specific experience as the ideal path, which is to enter into a heterosexual marriage even though they are homosexual.
But, per the revelations, that is the ideal path. It may not be a path that some can take due to weaknesses or opportunity but it is the ideal path.
And because it may not be a good idea due to weakness, Church authorities have also said that people should not enter into such marriages as a "cure" -- citing the same reasons that you have cited. However, the Church does not go as far as you seem to go in a belief that there is no hope for most of these people to have the blessings of marriage to a person of the opposite sex. I think the Church believes that such things as faith, maturity and discipline can be keys to overcoming the world and invites people to try.
My comments were in response to the idea that church members may take this person's specific experience as the ideal path, which is to enter into a heterosexual marriage even though they are homosexual.
As CAS has already pointed out, a Celesital marriage IS the ideal path. We will all fall short of the ideal, but we are nonetheless commanded to strive for the ideal.
If such a path is open to them, they should, at least, considerit in faith, in humility, and in supplication before the Lord. They should not reject it out of hand simply because "it's hard".
Quote
...what I am saying is people who are gay but choose not to enter into a heterosexual marriage as this person in the article should not be viewed as those who lack self-discipline, faith, or maturity, as others seemed to have suggested here.
The operative word, of course, is "seemed".
I don't see anywhere in this thread where anyone has implied that those who do not enter into such a covenant are immature or lacking in faith or self-discipline- let alone where they have come out and said it.
As both the OP and numerous others have stated, this solution is not for everyone. (Nor, for that matter, is marriage for everyone).
For my own position, I believe that maturity, self-discipline, and faith are the bedrock foundation upon which a strong Latter-day Saint is predicated. They are also the bare minimum requirements for any number of successful endeavors- including a successful marriage.
Quote
The expectation that a homosexual (yes, a homosexual, not someone with "feelings" or "temptations) should have more faith and discipline to ultimately enter into a heterosexual relationship is unreasonable and not something God would advocate.
This statement is problematic for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that you are begging the question.
What else is a "homosexual" other than someone who has homosexual feelings or temptations? The only difference between my usage and yours is that you insist on using those feelings as the penultimate ipso facto definition of the person's identity.
I categorically reject such shallow categorization,. A person is influenced, not defined, by their sexual preferences or predilections.
I agree with you that those with homosexual temptations or tendencies should not be judged simply on whether or not they enter into a heterosexual union, I am also constrained to point our that you have no authority to state what God would or would not advocate.
Within certain broad (God-defined) parameters, we each walk our own path to either salvation or damnation.
It is not my place, nor the Bishop's, nor the Apostle's, nor the Prophet's to dictate a specific path to any individual- but it is an inexorable truth that those who are striving to maintain and honor the law will invariably fair better than those who seek to exempt themselves from it.
Quote
The pinnacle path for a gay Mormon should not be to ultimately strive for a heterosexual marriage because the risks are very high and the consequences can be heartbreaking.
In your opinion. There are, as always, exceptions to your rule.
As the OP and others have noted, this isn't the solution for everyone. For the same reasons, your broad-brush assertion that "God would not advocate this solution for anyone" is equally flawed.
Quote
This is why church leaders have now been counseled to not push for this option.
I disagree with this statement. The Church leaders should not be "pushing" for any option. They may counsel. they may advise, they may suggest- but they should not be exercising any sort of unrighteous dominion in "pushing" a specific solution.
D&C 121: 41
"41No power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the priesthood, only by persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned;"
Quote
Some may choose it on their own and be successful, and that is their choice that we should all respect if it ultimately makes them happy.
I quite agree.
Quote
God will judge people differently based on their innate characteristics, environments, etc. We know this is the case since scriptures clearly teach that "for unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required."
I agree- but he will also judge us harshly when we fail our brethren by ignoring our commission to cry repentance and redemption to the lost and fallen. Neither compassion nor "non-judgementalism" require us to stand mute while another preaches error, nor when he digs a pit for his neighbor. Neither are we required to bear silent witness as another wanders into diverse temptations and sin.
In that regard, I am my brother's keeper. I cannot force him to walk any particular path- but I am required to warn him about the landmines in his path.
As D&C 64:61 says "61 For I will forgive you of your sins with this commandment—that you remain steadfast in your minds in solemnity and the spirit of prayer, in bearing testimony to all the world of those things which are communicated unto you."
Quote
Let's leave the judgment to God and take to heart the words of Elder Uchtdorf "We simply have to stop judging others and replace judgmental thoughts and feelings with a heart full of love." We can encourage and invite people to take certain paths, but we should leave the judgment to God when someone chooses to take a different one.
I quite agree. Any counsel, advice, or advice must be predicated upon faith, humility, and true Charity.
We are all supplicants before Christ and all beggars at his table. Any man who esteems himself better (or more virtuous) than his brother is treading a perilous path.
Any outreach must be done from love unfeigned and genuine concern for the welfare of those we try to reach- otherwise, it is rank hypocrisy (and in my opinion), damnation to our own souls.
Back to D&C 121: "42 By kindness, and pure knowledge, which shall greatly enlarge the soul without hypocrisy, and without guile— 43 Reproving betimes with sharpness, when moved upon by the Holy Ghost; and then showing forth afterwards an increase of love toward him whom thou hast reproved, lest he esteem thee to be his enemy;"
0
