Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Rodeo

Towards A Better Understanding Of Same Sex Attraction And Sin

Recommended Posts

I have obviously been accused of gay bashing. I just want to clarify I have never done any gay bashing. My heart goes out to those who struggle I do want to have abetter understanding of the issues but at the same time I do not want to fall nto the trap of calling that which is wrong to be right. Immoral behavior is always sin. There has been a push by the gay agenda to make homosexuality an alternative normal practice. It has crept into the church also amongst members and we even see many fall away over the myriad of issues. I do wonder though how much of this is due to Satan and his works. I found this talk to be helpful in my understanding-

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1995/10/same-gender-attraction?lang=eng&query=lesbian

At the same time in my study I also found this talk by Spencer W. Kimball- https://www.lds.org/ensign/1980/11/president-kimball-speaks-out-on-morality?lang=eng&query=homosexual+spencer+w.+kimball

So that I cannot be accused of gay bashing I want to quote Spencer W. Kimball which I feel truly represents our awful situation in the world today-

" This heinous homosexual sin is of the ages. Many cities and civilizations have gone out of existence because of it. It was present in Israel’s wandering days, tolerated by the Greeks, and found in the baths of corrupt Rome.

This is a most unpleasant subject to dwell upon, but I am pressed to speak of it boldly so that no youth in the Church will ever have any question in his mind as to the illicit and diabolical nature of this perverse program. Again, Lucifer deceives and prompts logic and rationalization which will destroy men and women and make them servants of Satan forever. Paul told Timothy:

“For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;

“And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be mined unto fables.” (2 Tim. 4:3–4; See also Moses 5:50–55.)

“God made me that way,” some say, as they rationalize and excuse themselves for their perversions. “I can’t help it,” they add. This is blasphemy. Is man not made in the image of God, and does he think God to be “that way”? Man is responsible for his own sins. It is possible that he may rationalize and excuse himself until the groove is so deep he cannot get out without great difficulty, but this he can do. Temptations come to all people. The difference between the reprobate and the worthy person is generally that one yielded and the other resisted. It is true that one’s background may make the decision and accomplishment easier or more difficult, but if one is mentally alert, he can still control his future. That is the gospel message—personal responsibility."

I am trying to understand the issue and I am constantly coming back to the same conclusion every time- The influence and acceptance of immoral behavior is just adding fuel to the fire in every facet which includes homosexual behavior.

Share this post


Link to post

Out of the people I personally know that are gay generally were not gay to start out with and it seems to be out of convenience in some cases. One was married to a guy, all though a total idiot of a guy he beat her, she is now gay. Another friend growing up sought out a lot of my wife's friends, he moved to go work at Disneyland where he was basically talked into being gay. He even said to my wife that he would like to date girls again but no girl would want him after they knew what he had done. Those were his words btw.

 

Either way, if some one claims to be "born that way" which there is 0 evidence for that, ie, the gay gene, one does not need to act on their impulses. There is something people that suffer from ssa can do. They can chose not to act on it. Just as I can chose to not act on a whole host of things. Something tells me though that those same sex advocates will do and that will be to misrepresent our position as it is a common and some what effective tactic.

 

I just don't buy into the whole narrative that is currently out there.

Share this post


Link to post

I think there is plenty of evidence to show that some/many/most gay folks are indeed born that way. Conceding that point is in no way a show of weakness or defeat. "For the natural man is an enemy to God..." 

 

Having said that, I will reiterate my belief that not all gay folks are born that way. I think orientation is much more complicated than a simple born that way or not. Experiences, both negative and positive, go a long way in contributing to sexual preferences.

Share this post


Link to post

  •  
    Ether 12:27

    27 And if men come unto me I will show unto them their weakness. I give unto men weakness that they may be humble; and my grace is sufficient for all men that humble themselves before me; for if they humble themselves before me, and have faith in me, then will I make weak things become strong unto them.

     

     

     

    Whether or not one was "born that way" (inherited weaknesses), God has allowed these challenges to happen that we might prove our character and whether we are willing to follow His Laws or let ourselves become subject the the flesh.

    The action, whether to submit to God or submit to the flesh, not the weakness, is a matter of choice.

     

Edited by BookofMormonLuvr

Share this post


Link to post

“God made me that way,” some say, as they rationalize and excuse themselves for their perversions. “I can’t help it,” they add. This is blasphemy.

Same-Gender Attraction

By Elder Dallin H. Oaks, October 1995

"Some kinds of feelings seem to be inborn."

"All of us have some feelings we did not choose,..."

"We did not choose these personal susceptibilities either,..."

"Perhaps such susceptibilities are inborn or acquired without personal choice or fault, like the unnamed ailment the Apostle Paul called “a thorn in the flesh, the messenger of Satan to buffet me, lest I should be exalted above measure”"

“Most of us are born with [or develop] thorns in the flesh, some more visible, some more serious than others."

"We all seem to have susceptibilities to one disorder or another,..."

Seems clear that Elder Oaks is discussing inborn characteristics. It is not blasphemy to acknowledge the thorns in our flesh - a point which Elder Oaks repeatedly discussed.

Edited by tonie

Share this post


Link to post

I have yet to hear an even halfway decent explanation as to why any kind of sexuality is a sin to begin with, let alone homosexuality. Why does God care about people's private sex lives?

 

The thought makes reason stare! Truth is reason. Truth eternal tells me... it doesn't add up.

Share this post


Link to post

I have yet to hear an even halfway decent explanation as to why any kind of sexuality is a sin to begin with, let alone homosexuality. Why does God care about people's private sex lives?

 

The thought makes reason stare! Truth is reason. Truth eternal tells me... it doesn't add up.

Say what?  We can debate whether SSA is inborn never, some, or all of the time, it seems obvious to me that the answer is in the middle. HOWEVER, the scriptures are replete with references that make it clear that God not only cares about our "private" sexual activities, they are a primary determinant of our eternal reward. Lets see, Alma told his son that sexual sin is  next to murder in seriousness, Christ told his followers in the sermon on the mount that even to look on another with lust is a serious sin. Paul addressed what happens to fornicators and it's not good.  I could go on, but don't see the reason to. 

When you consider that the whole point of the Plan of Salvation is for us to end up in God's presence with our spouse to whom we are married and sealed to for time and all eternity, the eternal truth behind why God cares about our private life becomes evident.  Marriage between a man and a woman (women under some circumstances) is not just another principle of the gospel, it's the central pillar of the Gospel. 

If that thought makes you stare, then I don't know how it could be more clear. Sometimes reason stares right back at you.

Edited by Buzzard

Share this post


Link to post

Hi Rodeo,

 

I'll play devil's advocate here and see if I can give you some things to think about. 

 

Immoral behavior is always sin. 

Mote and beam come to mind.  Glass houses and throwing stones come to mind.  Our church's relatively recent efforts to get it's members to reach out with love, understanding, and compassion to our brothers, sisters, neighbors who are attracted to the same gender - even if they're openly practicing - come to mind.  

 

Are you close to any homosexuals?  Do you have a gay relative or close friend?  Do you know any at work?  If not, why not?  Are you avoiding them, shunning them, driving them from you with your harsh words?  Could you extend a welcoming hand of friendship to one?  A hug?  Genuine brotherly love?  If your actions (or lack of actions) indicate can't/won't/don't, then perhaps it would be a good time to start a thread about your immoral behavior and how sinful it is.

 

You say "My heart goes out to those who struggle".  Tell us about your actions. 

 

 

I also found this talk by Spencer W. Kimball- https://www.lds.org/ensign/1980/11/president-kimball-speaks-out-on-morality?lang=eng&query=homosexual+spencer+w.+kimball

 “God made me that way,” some say, as they rationalize and excuse themselves for their perversions. “I can’t help it,” they add. This is blasphemy. Is man not made in the image of God, and does he think God to be “that way”? Man is responsible for his own sins. It is possible that he may rationalize and excuse himself until the groove is so deep he cannot get out without great difficulty, but this he can do. Temptations come to all people. The difference between the reprobate and the worthy person is generally that one yielded and the other resisted. It is true that one’s background may make the decision and accomplishment easier or more difficult, but if one is mentally alert, he can still control his future. That is the gospel message—personal responsibility."

Ah, 1980.  We were so close to clarifying the notion "inclinations aren't sinful, how we choose to deal with them are".  But we weren't quite there yet.  Eventually, we learned to take stock of a few ways human beings can just be born or made.  Genetic predispositions for schizophrenia alcoholism.  Prenatal cocaine exposure (i.e. "crack babies") has been linked to behavioral issues later in life.  Child abuse bringing higher risk of developing psychiatric issues.  If Pres. Kimball were here today, we could ask him to read up on the latest 34 years of scientific understanding, and clarify his thoughts.   Because it sort of looks like he's claiming mentally ill folks who claim they "can't help it" are blaspheming.  And we all know that's not always true.
 
Don't we?

Share this post


Link to post

I think the first step for anyone who wants to understand their own sexual impulses, or lack of them, is to figure out why they have them or don't have them.

For those who think some woman is attractive, figure out why. What is it about her, or about you, that causes you to believe she is?

And the same line of inquiry should be followed for anyone who think a man is attractive, too.

Sexuality is all about what sex a person is, whether male or female, and I don't think anyone thinks a man or a woman is attractive just because they or that person was born a male or female. So just figure out with your own mind what it is about a man or a woman that causes you to think he or she is attractive. And then from there you can decide what you should do about your attraction to that person.

As far back as I can remember I've thought some of each sex were attractive to me and some of each sex were also repulsive to me, and it usually had more to do with how they acted and what they thought than how they looked physically.

Now it's just a matter of what I should do about what I think, and I'm always striving to be as our Father is.

Share this post


Link to post

So that I cannot be accused of gay bashing I want to quote Spencer W. Kimball which I feel truly represents our awful situation in the world today-

" This heinous homosexual sin is of the ages. Many cities and civilizations have gone out of existence because of it. It was present in Israel’s wandering days, tolerated by the Greeks, and found in the baths of corrupt Rome.

 

Shoot... I thought that Rome fell due to monogamy, not homosexuality...

 

“It is a fact worthy of note that the shortest-lived nations of which we have record have been monogamic. Rome, with her arts, sciences and warlike instincts, was once the mistress of the world; but her glory faded. She was a mono-gamic nation, and the numerous evils attending that system early laid the foundation for that ruin which eventually overtook her.”  -- George Q. Cannon, JoD

 

“Monogamy, or restrictions by law to one wife, is no part of the economy of heaven among men. Such a system was commenced by the founders of the Roman Empire... Rome became the mistress of the world, and introduced this order of monogamy wherever her sway was acknowledged. Thus this monogamic order of marriage, so esteemed by modern Christians as a hold sacrament and divine institution, is nothing but a system established by a set of robbers.” -- Brigham Young, Deseret News

Share this post


Link to post

Rodeo and Mola Rom,

 

You each should spend some time reading on the Church website mormonsandgays.org. You each seem out of plum with the position of the Church regarding our interactions with "our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters." (Interesting note, notice the Church is using the terms "lesbian" and "gay")


Where the Church stands:

The experience of same-sex attraction is a complex reality for many people. The attraction itself is not a sin, but acting on it is. Even though individuals do not choose to have such attractions, they do choose how to respond to them. With love and understanding, the Church reaches out to all God’s children, including our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters.

A Collection of Conversations:

"There is no change in the Church’s position of what is morally right. But what is changing — and what needs to change — is to help Church members respond sensitively and thoughtfully when they encounter same-sex attraction in their own families, among other Church members, or elsewhere."

Share this post


Link to post

The thought makes reason stare! Truth is reason. Truth eternal tells me... it doesn't add up.

 

Perhaps you are trying to add the wrong numbers.

Share this post


Link to post

Say what?  We can debate whether SSA is inborn never, some, or all of the time, it seems obvious to me that the answer is in the middle. HOWEVER, the scriptures are replete with references that make it clear that God not only cares about our "private" sexual activities, they are a primary determinant of our eternal reward.

It's not obvious to me, and the scriptures are silent on what God's reasoning is. It would be a simple enough thing to mention. I can understand why child neglect would be a sin, but not consensual sex. It's just not self evident, like many of the other so-called "lesser" sins.

 

Lets see, Alma told his son that sexual sin is  next to murder in seriousness,

Really? I see that as hypocrisy being next to murder.

 

Christ told his followers in the sermon on the mount that even to look on another with lust is a serious sin.

He said that lust was the same as adultery, but He never actually say that adultery was a serious sin. He was basically calling people out on their hypocrisy. Note that He was protecting the woman in question from being stoned to death.

 

Paul addressed what happens to fornicators and it's not good.

Paul also said that women shouldn't speak in church. I don't think he knows what he's talking about.

 

I could go on, but don't see the reason to.

Please do. I'm still not seeing it, and I especially want to know why God would care, and that's not evident anywhere. I'm left thinking that the idea of sexual sins is based merely off of the cultural norms of desert nomads.

 

When you consider that the whole point of the Plan of Salvation is for us to end up in God's presence with our spouse to whom we are married and sealed to for time and all eternity, the eternal truth behind why God cares about our private life becomes evident.  Marriage between a man and a woman (women under some circumstances) is not just another principle of the gospel, it's the central pillar of the Gospel. 

If that thought makes you stare, then I don't know how it could be more clear. Sometimes reason stares right back at you.

I can see why marriage is a central principle, and it's a central principle in a lot of other occult traditions, but I don't see why it can't include gay marriage and/or open marriage.

Share this post


Link to post

Same-Gender Attraction

By Elder Dallin H. Oaks, October 1995

"Some kinds of feelings seem to be inborn."

"All of us have some feelings we did not choose,..."

"We did not choose these personal susceptibilities either,..."

"Perhaps such susceptibilities are inborn or acquired without personal choice or fault, like the unnamed ailment the Apostle Paul called “a thorn in the flesh, the messenger of Satan to buffet me, lest I should be exalted above measure”"

“Most of us are born with [or develop] thorns in the flesh, some more visible, some more serious than others."

"We all seem to have susceptibilities to one disorder or another,..."

Seems clear that Elder Oaks is discussing inborn characteristics. It is not blasphemy to acknowledge the thorns in our flesh - a point which Elder Oaks repeatedly discussed.

 

Note that he doesn't say it is all inborn, nor does he say people with SSA can't ever have other feelings or change those feelings.  

 

We need to acknowledge that such feelings exist and come to an understanding that for some these feelings are overwhelming, but we should also acknowledge that through the atonement and our efforts we can ...someday...change and have choices on our feelings.  Some will be able to do it earlier in this life, some may not be able to get there till the next.  Meanwhile we empower people with love and support all the while teaching of the atonement.

 

edited to add the someday because most cannot instantly change feelings.

Edited by Rain

Share this post


Link to post

It's not obvious to me, and the scriptures are silent on what God's reasoning is. It would be a simple enough thing to mention. I can understand why child neglect would be a sin, but not consensual sex. It's just not self evident, like many of the other so-called "lesser" sins.

 

Really? I see that as hypocrisy being next to murder.

 

He said that lust was the same as adultery, but He never actually say that adultery was a serious sin. He was basically calling people out on their hypocrisy. Note that He was protecting the woman in question from being stoned to death.

 

Paul also said that women shouldn't speak in church. I don't think he knows what he's talking about.

 

Please do. I'm still not seeing it, and I especially want to know why God would care, and that's not evident anywhere. I'm left thinking that the idea of sexual sins is based merely off of the cultural norms of desert nomads.

 

I can see why marriage is a central principle, and it's a central principle in a lot of other occult traditions, but I don't see why it can't include gay marriage and/or open marriage.

 

"Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity."

 

That's why.

 

And that's where Wicca and popular culture utterly fail, as they inculcate a culture of selfishness where children are either a nuisance, a burden, an accessory, or a bit of protoplasm to be squashed at our whim.

Share this post


Link to post

Note that he doesn't say it is all inborn, nor does he say people with SSA can't ever have other feelings or change those feelings.  

 

We need to acknowledge that such feelings exist and come to an understanding that for some these feelings are overwhelming, but we should also acknowledge that through the atonement and our efforts we can change and have choices on our feelings.  Some will be able to do it earlier in this life, some may not be able to get there till the next.  Meanwhile we empower people with love and support all the while teaching of the atonement.

 

Rodeo is clearly wrong to call someone a blasphemer for saying their suseptibility is inborn.

 

All or some, it does not matter.  The Church acknowledges that some suseptibilities are inborn. The Church also acknowledges that what ever we are inborn with, can be overcome or rather we are not controlled by what is inborn to us.

Share this post


Link to post

I have yet to hear an even halfway decent explanation as to why any kind of sexuality is a sin to begin with, let alone homosexuality. Why does God care about people's private sex lives?

 

The thought makes reason stare! Truth is reason. Truth eternal tells me... it doesn't add up.

 

God is the Master Creator.  We are His children.  He has shared some of His creative power with us, His children.  It is a gift.  It matters to Him what we do with that gift.  The exercise of that gift is the only way for human life on this planet to be created.  That process is central to God's plan for His children.  Abuse of that creative power very often results in misery and heart-ache, including that which results from out of wed-lock births.  

 

The creative power is also central to our growth toward being like God.  It makes us like Him.

 

It is surprising that knowing these things, you would suggest that there is no logic behind or reason behind the sinful nature of abusing this power.

Share this post


Link to post

At the same time in my study I also found this talk by Spencer W. Kimball-

I can only hope that President Kimball's thoughts on the subject are the start of your understanding of "homosexuality" and people who would be identified as "homosexuals", and not the end of it.

Edited by cinepro

Share this post


Link to post

Rodeo is clearly wrong to call someone a blasphemer for saying their suseptibility is inborn.

 

All or some, it does not matter.  The Church acknowledges that some suseptibilities are inborn. The Church also acknowledges that what ever we are inborn with, can be overcome or rather we are not controlled by what is inborn to us.

That was actually Spencer W. Kimball

Share this post


Link to post

Note that he doesn't say it is all inborn, nor does he say people with SSA can't ever have other feelings or change those feelings.  

 

We need to acknowledge that such feelings exist and come to an understanding that for some these feelings are overwhelming, but we should also acknowledge that through the atonement and our efforts we can change and have choices on our feelings.  Some will be able to do it earlier in this life, some may not be able to get there till the next.  Meanwhile we empower people with love and support all the while teaching of the atonement.

 

We also need to be careful that we don't make people feel that a failure to change their sexual orientation is due to their own personal weakness or lack of faith.  Too much harm has already been done by that teaching.

 

Your last sentence is key... we need to find things we can do to help those who are gay & lesbian to feel loved and supported.  Without that, we will ultimately fail at teaching the atonement.

Share this post


Link to post

We also need to be careful that we don't make people feel that a failure to change their sexual orientation is due to their own personal weakness or lack of faith.  Too much harm has already been done by that teaching.

 

Your last sentence is key... we need to find things we can do to help those who are gay & lesbian to feel loved and supported.  Without that, we will ultimately fail at teaching the atonement.

Define "supported"...

Share this post


Link to post

Rodeo is clearly wrong to call someone a blasphemer for saying their suseptibility is inborn.

 

All or some, it does not matter.  The Church acknowledges that some suseptibilities are inborn. The Church also acknowledges that what ever we are inborn with, can be overcome or rather we are not controlled by what is inborn to us.

I agree with everything except, "All or some, it does not matter" because I do think it matters - at least it may matter to to the person it is affecting -  Spirit guidance of how it affects them may help them with how to direct their faith.  But it should not matter to those of use who are not experiencing those feelings - we can't judge how it falls with another person. 

 

Edit - I didn't catch that SWH said that, not Rodeo.   I still think we need to be careful in applying the term to others.  

Edited by Rain

Share this post


Link to post

We also need to be careful that we don't make people feel that a failure to change their sexual orientation is due to their own personal weakness or lack of faith.  Too much harm has already been done by that teaching.

 

Your last sentence is key... we need to find things we can do to help those who are gay & lesbian to feel loved and supported.  Without that, we will ultimately fail at teaching the atonement.

 

Definitely. 

Share this post


Link to post

What the cause is, is irrelevant it is whether it is handled within God's guidelines.  I have several problems of my own that are of varying degrees of difficulty for me.  I don't always make the correct choices but for now I get to keep trying.

Share this post


Link to post

So that I cannot be accused of gay bashing I want to quote Spencer W. Kimball which I feel truly represents our awful situation in the world today-

 

So that I cannot be accused of racism I want to quote Brigham Young which I feel truly represents our awful situation in the world today-

 

You see some classes of the human family that are black, uncouth, uncomely, disagreeable and low in their habits, wild, and seemingly deprived of nearly all the blessings of the intelligence that is generally bestowed upon mankind. The first man that committed the odious crime of killing one of his brethren will be cursed the longest of anyone of the children of Adam. Cain slew his brother. Cain might have been killed, and that would have put a termination to that line of human beings. This was not to be, and the Lord put a mark upon him, which is the flat nose and black skin. Trace mankind down to after the flood, and then another curse is pronounced upon the same race—that they should be the “servant of servants;” and they will be, until that curse is removed; and the Abolitionists cannot help it, nor in the least alter that decree. How long is that race to endure the dreadful curse that is upon them? That curse will remain upon them, and they never can hold the Priesthood or share in it until all the other descendants of Adam have received the promises and enjoyed the blessings of the Priesthood and the keys thereof. Brigham Young - Journal of Discourses Vol 7 P. 290

 

 

I like this strategy.  I can't say don't blame me, I'm just sharing the prophets words. 

 

 

Phaedrus

 

No racebaiting please.

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×