Is Being Gay A Sin? Does It Need Amelioration?

[Robert F. Smith]

Is being gay a sin? Does being gay require amelioration? Can it be done? If so, how is that to be done? Are the methods of Evergreen and NorthStar adequate or effective? Can they be improved? If so, how?

Another thread was just closed in which a closely related discussion was being pursued, but without being resolved. On the one hand, the Church was being blamed for authoring questionable policies, while gay persons were complaining of being blamed for being gay. Is there room for some sort of modus vivendi?

I'll begin by inserting a comment by california boy from that closed thread:

Robert F. Smith, on 17 July 2012 - 09:42 PM, said:

Does this website information accord with Matheson's Evergreen Manual? Is he rather than "the Church" the author of these points of view? So, wouldn't it be more responsible to speak in terms of who is taking these positions? And whether such notions could in any way help in counseling gay church members?

california boy said:

Yes the web site reflects exactly the approach Matheson's Evergreen Manual as well as his own private practice towards being gay. The church commissioned him among others to write the manual for the church. Evergreen is the churches organization. It is not David Matheson's. It is where the church tells bishops to send gay men in the church. It is the teachings that the church wants those that are gay to receive. Evergreen is not David Matheson's organization, it is the churches under priesthood leadership. As far as I know, Matheson holds no "position" in Evergreen.

Robert F. Smith, on 17 July 2012 - 09:42 PM, said:

If you had the job of writing such an etiological explanation of the source of gayness, what would you write about it? Would a therapist have more success using your approach? And what would that "success" consist of? Being helpful in some way? What sort of advice would you give to the Brethren?

california boy said:

The church states that it doesn't know how or why a person is gay. In reality no one knows why someone is gay, even gay organizations. What I do know and what every gay person knows is that they are wired to be attracted to the same sex in every sense as someone who is straight is wired to be attracted to someone of the opposite sex. How it happened or why it happened is really irrelevant. Does it help a blind man to see better if he is given an explanation as to why he is blind? At the end of the day, he is still blind. Honesty is a much more powerful way of dealing with someone that is gay than a false dishonest story than forcing gay men to buy into that dishonesty as the way to stay involved in the church. Being told untruths is not going to help. And quite frankly, this dishonesty really was what made me question the path that the church wanted me to follow. If the church is not truthful and honest, then can it be fo God?

Evergreen should be an organization that supports and helps a gay member learn to live within the church guidelines. How does a gay person deal with parents who reject him. How does a gay person deal with brothers and sisters that no longer want him in their lives? How does a gay person deal with feeling that they will never be considered full members in the church. How does a gay man come to grips that the only jobs in the church will be minor roles in serving God. That if the church did not know he was gay, then he would be allowed to serve in any capacity. And those are the easy questions that should be addressed by an organization like Evergreen.

The hard questions are how do you deal with being all alone your whole life. How do you live without any close relationships with anyone. How do you travel this road all alone when the biggest drive in anyone's life is to share their life with a companion that they can love, trust, and honor. What will this life of loneliness lead to after we die? "it is not good for man to be alone" rings in every gay mans head daily. Do you think it is comforting to tell a gay man that if he is faithful in living this life that is outlined by the church currently, he will be able to enter the Celestial Kingdom and live throughout eternity with a woman?? Yikes. None of those issues are ever addressed by Evergreen or the church. I certainly would like to know what path God has for me as a gay man. So far none has been revealed. So what is the motivation that would cause someone to make such a life for themselves.

I wouldn't presume to tell the brethren what to believe. But if asked, I would ask them to prayerfully consider the opportunity to allow gay marriage in the church. Yes the Bible condemns lying with a man and calls it an abomination. It also calls adultery an abomination whose punishment is death. It also calls fornication an abomination punishable by death. Sex outside of marriage gets treated the exact same way across the board.

The church should be encouraging gay men to be married, have sex within the confides of holy matrimony. Form stable relationships. Be committed to someone you love. There is no downside for the church to encourage gay civil marriages. And perhaps the day will come when God will reveal that gay men can one day have temple marriages. That would at least give a gay man hope and a place in the church. This path certainly fits in better with church doctrine than the current senerio. I just want gay people to be treated like the blacks were before the 1978 revelation. God loves them too, but the full blessings are not yet available.

I realize this is not going to happen in my lifetime. Gay men will continue to leave the church. The church will sorrow in their departure but wish them well. And that is the reality of it all.

Edited July 19, 2012 by Robert F. Smith

[mrmandias]

All knowledge begins with the definition of terms. "Sin" has more than one definition and we should be clear what definition we're using.

The mainstream LDS definition of "sin" is the relatively narrow "deliberately and willfully chosen violation of the commandments." Under that definition, being gay isn't a sin. Its a propensity to sin, but not itself sinful.

However, under that definition sin isn't the only obstacle to salvation and eternal life. I am mortal, frex. That has to be fixed. I am spiritually broken in all sorts of ways that aren't clearly the result of my deliberate choice, but still separate me from the glory of god.

Being homosexual is one of those things. In the sweet paradox of the gospel, wrestling with it and looking for the redemptive meaning in it can bring one closer to God. But ultimately the problem itself will have to be fixed.

The notion that gay marriage can be made compatible with the gospel isn't really worht taking seriously. Anyone open to reason on the subject has already understood that it isn't.

[USU78]

Of course we'll have to figure out what "amelioration" looks like on the ground before we can state that amelioration needs to happen.

I know what I mean when I use it. I don't know if others would agree.

As to the first question, I think the implications of the Declaration on the Family are pretty clear: there are no stated exceptions for those for whom marriage, as defined by virtually everybody in the world before the last 3-5 years, would be particularly difficult. And there is no provision for the perversion that is "gay" "marriage."

[Robert F. Smith]

california boy

Hi. I appreciated your frank remarks, and that no doubt helps create some understanding of the gay dilemma.

However, I don't adhere to the belief that when the Brethren assign the writing of a manual to someone that this means that the one assigned will be free from error in his task. The Church has published lots of manuals over the years, not all of which say the same thing, and many of which have been improved upon with time and further light and knowledge.

The Brethren seek information from a wide variety of sources in fulfilling their myriad tasks. There is no reason to accord them infallible or inerrant status, and they would be the first to admit that. They need good advice on all sorts of matters, and a lot goes on privately in that respect which most members simply do not know about.

Just offhand, I would imagine that those operating group therapy weekends for Evergreen and NorthStar are paid for their work, and so probably have some position with these organizations. Is that unrealistic? Aren't the methods used by them their methods?

[Robert F. Smith]

All knowledge begins with the definition of terms. "Sin" has more than one definition and we should be clear what definition we're using.

The mainstream LDS definition of "sin" is the relatively narrow "deliberately and willfully chosen violation of the commandments." Under that definition, being gay isn't a sin. Its a propensity to sin, but not itself sinful.

However, under that definition sin isn't the only obstacle to salvation and eternal life. I am mortal, frex. That has to be fixed. I am spiritually broken in all sorts of ways that aren't clearly the result of my deliberate choice, but still separate me from the glory of god.

Being homosexual is one of those things. In the sweet paradox of the gospel, wrestling with it and looking for the redemptive meaning in it can bring one closer to God. But ultimately the problem itself will have to be fixed.

The notion that gay marriage can be made compatible with the gospel isn't really worht taking seriously. Anyone open to reason on the subject has already understood that it isn't.

So, being gay or having same sex attraction is not a sin. Rather it is acting upon that desire and engaging in gay behavior?

I have heard of gay men in the Church who maintain a celibate lifestyle. Is that a reasonable option?

[Robert F. Smith]

Of course we'll have to figure out what "amelioration" looks like on the ground before we can state that amelioration needs to happen.

I know what I mean when I use it. I don't know if others would agree.

As to the first question, I think the implications of the Declaration on the Family are pretty clear: there are no stated exceptions for those for whom marriage, as defined by virtually everybody in the world before the last 3-5 years, would be particularly difficult. And there is no provision for the perversion that is "gay" "marriage."

Would celibacy be an alternative in this life? I have heard that this is in fact an option which some have actually practiced, but I don't wish to mention any names.

[JAHS]

Perhaps someone has already mentioned this recently but an interesting quote from Elder Bruce C. Hafen, a member of the First Quorum of the Seventy, speaking at the 19th annual conference of Evergreen International made this promise:

"If you are faithful, on resurrection morning -- and maybe even before then -- you will rise with normal attractions for the opposite sex."

http://www.evergreen...-Conference.pdf

As far as I can tell gays will have to live with this thorn in their side and remain celibate at least until the second coming. I don't see the policy changing before then.

Edited July 18, 2012 by JAHS

[Calm]

I have heard of gay men in the Church who maintain a celibate lifestyle. Is that a reasonable option?

There are many heterosexual men and women who have done so. It seems to me if possible for them, it is reasonable for those with homosexual tendencies.

[Robert F. Smith]

Perhaps someone has already mentioned this recently but an interesting quote from Elder Bruce C. Hafen, a member of the First Quorum of the Seventy, speaking at the 19th annual conference of Evergreen International made this promise:

"If you are faithful, on resurrection morning -- and maybe even before then -- you will rise with normal attractions for the opposite sex."

http://www.evergreen...-Conference.pdf

As far as I can tell gays will have to live with this thorn in their side and remain celibate at least until the second coming. I don't see the policy changing before then.

What about the loneliness which gay people complain about? Isn't that a significant problem? Could some program be devised to deal with that and enrich the lives of people who must spend their lives in a celibate state?

[Calm]

Could some program be devised to deal with that and enrich the lives of people who must spend their lives in a celibate state?

There are a number of older single individuals that have reported having a tough time living in a church that emphasizes the ideal state of marriage and family so heavily. I think any effort to address the needs of those who are not married, whether by personal choice of celibacy or lack of opportunity, is a very worthwhile effort. Some wards/stakes are better at it than others. I am not that familiar with the current programs available to evaluate what else might be helpful (besides encouraging wards and stakes to make use of what is currently available at the very least). Edited July 18, 2012 by calmoriah

[Robert F. Smith]

Perhaps someone has already mentioned this recently but an interesting quote from Elder Bruce C. Hafen, a member of the First Quorum of the Seventy, speaking at the 19th annual conference of Evergreen International made this promise:

"If you are faithful, on resurrection morning -- and maybe even before then -- you will rise with normal attractions for the opposite sex."

http://www.evergreen...-Conference.pdf

As far as I can tell gays will have to live with this thorn in their side and remain celibate at least until the second coming. I don't see the policy changing before then.

Do Evergreen and NorthStar strongly recommend this as ameliorative? What do they recommend that one do for companionship? Should gay men seek friendships with straight women -- just friendships? Nothing more.

[USU78]

What about the loneliness which gay people complain about? Isn't that a significant problem? Could some program be devised to deal with that and enrich the lives of people who must spend their lives in a celibate state?

I know of long-term caregivers for the chronically ill who live both celibate and reasonably happy lives.

And I don't see them qvetching about changing the world to accommodate their loneliness.

[Robert F. Smith]

I know of long-term caregivers for the chronically ill who live both celibate and reasonably happy lives.

And I don't see them qvetching about changing the world to accommodate their loneliness.

But some people like to kvetch! Could they be accorded a regular opportunity to kvetch in group therapy?

[altersteve]

My position is, and always has been, that "being gay" is not a sin. What's sinful is acting on those same-sex attractions, just as being addicted to drugs is not sinful, but giving in to that addition definitely is. However, I have no position on whether or not homosexuality can be "reversed" or "cured," since I don't know enough about that subject.

Disclaimer: Please don't think I'm saying that being gay is the same thing as being a drug addict. I was just trying to make a simple comparison to clarify.

Edited July 18, 2012 by altersteve

[mrmandias]

So, being gay or having same sex attraction is not a sin. Rather it is acting upon that desire and engaging in gay behavior?

I have heard of gay men in the Church who maintain a celibate lifestyle. Is that a reasonable option?

Why wouldn't it be? The idea that every problem can be solved in the here-and-now is a pernicious American notion. Some crosses were meant to be carried. Some thorns won't be drawn from the flesh by any earthly physician.

This doesn't mean that gay therapy is always and everywhere a mistake. It does mean that one shouldn't expect it to always work or that it would work if only one had more faith.

[Damien the Leper]

All knowledge begins with the definition of terms. "Sin" has more than one definition and we should be clear what definition we're using.

The mainstream LDS definition of "sin" is the relatively narrow "deliberately and willfully chosen violation of the commandments." Under that definition, being gay isn't a sin. Its a propensity to sin, but not itself sinful.

I agree and am with you on this. Likewise, being heterosexual isn't a sin but it is the propensity to sin just as well. For example, pre-marital sex and adultery.

However, under that definition sin isn't the only obstacle to salvation and eternal life. I am mortal, frex. That has to be fixed. I am spiritually broken in all sorts of ways that aren't clearly the result of my deliberate choice, but still separate me from the glory of god.

This I also agree with.

Being homosexual is one of those things. In the sweet paradox of the gospel, wrestling with it and looking for the redemptive meaning in it can bring one closer to God. But ultimately the problem itself will have to be fixed.

I hope it is fixed. I don't want to have SSA in the eternities...no thank you.

The notion that gay marriage can be made compatible with the gospel isn't really worht taking seriously. Anyone open to reason on the subject has already understood that it isn't.

This I also agree with though it has taken a while for me to do so.

[Damien the Leper]

So, being gay or having same sex attraction is not a sin. Rather it is acting upon that desire and engaging in gay behavior?

I have heard of gay men in the Church who maintain a celibate lifestyle. Is that a reasonable option?

Yes and yes.

[Damien the Leper]

What about the loneliness which gay people complain about? Isn't that a significant problem? Could some program be devised to deal with that and enrich the lives of people who must spend their lives in a celibate state?

To an extent loneliness does seem depressing but ultimately my relationship with the Savior and God supercedes that of any temporal relationship. Is it a significant problem? Depends on who you ask. As for a program to be devised...I'm not concerned nor am I holding my breath.

[Damien the Leper]

Why wouldn't it be? The idea that every problem can be solved in the here-and-now is a pernicious American notion. Some crosses were meant to be carried. Some thorns won't be drawn from the flesh by any earthly physician.

This doesn't mean that gay therapy is always and everywhere a mistake. It does mean that one shouldn't expect it to always work or that it would work if only one had more faith.

This is why no one takes Elder Packer's talk "To The One" as seriously any longer because it is an older paradigm of thought.

As for me, I'm not necessarily looking for a cure in this temporal existence but I am looking to be rid of this in the next.

[Calm]

As for me, I'm not necessarily looking for a cure in this temporal existence but I am looking to be rid of this in the next.

There are several things I am looking forward to being rid of myself. This hope is one reason I find them 'survivable' at the moment.

[BCSpace]

Is being gay a sin?

Yes. Some would argue that it's homosexual acts only because it's not a sin to be tempted, but the repentance process used by Stake and Ward leaders starting with the publication "God Loveth His Children" makes it clear that if one thinks of oneself as a "gay person" one is not on the road to repentance; ergo self identification as a homosexual means one has stopped struggling against temptation and accepts one's own sinful condition.

Does being gay require amelioration?

Depends on what you mean by that and whether or not homosexuality is inborn or a disease.

Can it be done?

If required, yes. The Lord always provides a way.

[Calm]

ergo self identification as a homosexual means one has stopped struggling against temptation and accepts one's own sinful condition

I think this is a cognitive issue and may be one of misunderstanding and not giving into temptation.

[Damien the Leper]

Yes. Some would argue that it's homosexual acts only because it's not a sin to be tempted, but the repentance process used by Stake and Ward leaders starting with the publication "God Loveth His Children" makes it clear that if one thinks of oneself as a "gay person" one is not on the road to repentance; ergo self identification as a homosexual means one has stopped struggling against temptation and accepts one's own sinful condition.

This is ridiculous. What is makes this ridiculous is the assumption that someone has possibly made a conscious choice to live with 'sinful' attraction. You seem to suggest that by no longer 'struggling' with SSA and leaving it all to the Lord that an individual is choosing to sin. Let me be explicitly clear: I AM NOT SINNING BECAUSE I AM RECOGNIZE MY SSA AND LEAVE ALL REMEDY UP TO THE LORD. To suggest otherwise is presumptuous. It is moreso presumptuous that you can turn SSA on/off over any space of time like a lightswitch. Furthermore, based on my personal experience and opinion that I was BORN with SSA you would seem to suggest also that I was born with sin. This is, as Selek would say, unmitigated rot.

You are NOT the authority on my 'sinful' attraction. I would like to know if Pres. Monson would agree with your logic. What is evident of your position is that it lacks grace and mercy. God Loveth His Children, in all the times I've read it, has never suggested what you do.

[Calm]

I think however a person chooses to frame their SSA so that they are willing to turn their lives over to God and act as He directs them is the best way to view it.

This doesn't have to be a permanent view either, people's understanding of their "Self" changes over the years, I understand myself in significantly different ways as a 50 year old than I did as a 15 year old. I see no reason why this can't be applied to SSA as well as the Spirit works on us to increase our understanding and oneness with the Lord.

A recognition that I am genetically doomed by my paternal line when it comes to sleep does not mean I have given into the temptation to use my disorder as an excuse or anything else besides a recognition that I have this genetic disposition. In fact accepting it has meant I am willing to actually do something about, something that some of my siblings weren't until they are forced to by the progression of the disorder. Many of those who use the phrase "I am gay" are simply stating "I have a physical disposition", nothing more. I don't believe they are responsible for how others interpret the phrase unless it is intentionally used to mean "and there is nothing I can do about it so the rules don't apply to me" or some such thing.

For many, not using the phrase "I am gay" can help them reach beyond that disposition and even change it. I have seen this happen. However, I have also heard of those who find it more effective to live a gospel oriented life by seeing themselves as "gay" while not accepting the limitations often put on that label by others and I am not going to argue with them though I wish that both methods were widely discussed as it seems like using the term "I am gay" is the default response at the moment. Saying "I am gay" in a conversation of describing how one is happily married to a woman can lead to the inference that the attraction one feels for one's wife is unnatural and this can be confusing.

Edited July 18, 2012 by calmoriah

[Jaybear]

So for those who don't believe homosexuality is a sin, but rather the behavior, do you disagree with the policy of the BSA, supported by the LDS Church which bans gays from scouting, even celibate gays.