Steven Snow and LGTQ

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Rain said:

You only have to watch Elder Holland's video that was shown for temple open houses where he said that heaven would not be heaven without his wife to see this.  Forgetting the attraction part (which is what the natural man part would be, but really is a huge thing) just the idea of getting to heaven and not finding my dear husband as my spouse because suddenly my resurrected body is attracted to women completely neglects the deep love we have for each other.  Seriously, even if I were now attracted to someone else I can't imagine not being partnered with my husband. 

I think some people mix up the resurrection idea. This isn't like a blond changing to a celestial brunette body.  This is like no longer being with your blond spouse that you were married to for 50 years and dearly loved and being put with a brunette instead because now you are attracted to brunettes.  

I don’t know if this is still a dominant view even among members older than I am, but the idea that homosexual love could be that deep was not common at least among church members in my youth in my experience (and I lived on the San Francisco peninsula so there was quite a bit of discussion about it, including personal relationships with those who were open about their sexuality…though can’t remember any that were still members of the Church at the time after they came out.  It was also a big deal at BYU).  Some viewed it as a purely physical attraction, as in no one cared about what the other thought or wanted, it was just body hunger.  Then there was the narcissism view…someone was only really in love with themselves…or a little kinder, only felt safe with someone like them.  Others viewed as a fear of deep symbiotic relationships in general, so sure they may actually love each other, but it wouldn’t be a deep, committed love as they were going for the easier relationships (because it was seen as easier to understand and fill the needs of someone of the same sex).  No doubt there were other ideas, but most likely had the attribute that such love was relatively easy to put aside and be replaced with something else, especially since that love would be so much more ‘real’ than what they had before.

Edited July 1, 2025 by Calm

[Buckeye]

1 hour ago, Notatbm said:

They should be afforded the same rights as say elder oaks and pres Nelson. Both have remarried since their first wives passed away. Neither of these marriages can/will result in children being born. Why do they get to be married and enjoy the “benefits” of marriage when they cannot have children annd definitely wouldn’t be allowed to adopt due to age? Oaks second wife was  53 when they married… she isn’t having kids at 53. Why did they marry? Pres Nelson’s wife was 56… yep no chance of having kids. May as well be gay. 

I believe the church would say that Oaks’ and Nelson’s eternal marriages will bring children in the eternities even if they can’t in mortality.
 

A better example for your point is my aunt who is sealed to husband A with whom she has 6 children BIC and has very vocally said she’ll be with in the eternities. Husband A passed away in his early 60s (way too early; he was my favorite uncle). While my aunt initially said she’d never remarry, she eventually did. Husband B is nice. They are only civilly married, no possibility of children in this life, and they won’t be married in the next. So what’s the point of her second marriage in the church’s eyes?
 

In my view, she’s clearly happier being remarried, and it gives her opportunities to continue growing in Christlike characteristics. She’ll be a better person and have a better eternal marriage to husband A because of her temporal and childless marriage to husband B. It’s a good relationship, a stepping stone if you will, even though it’s not eternal. 
 

I use this example to explain why I’d encourage my children to marry if they were gay. Even assuming the church’s teaching is correct that they can become heterosexual in the next life (still a puzzle why not in this life then), and further assuming my child would make that choice, they will be better prepared for the eternal heterosexual marriage through a lifetime of shared sacrifice and growth in an earthly homosexual union than if they chose to live this life single. 

[Notatbm]

40 minutes ago, Buckeye said:

I believe the church would say that Oaks’ and Nelson’s eternal marriages will bring children in the eternities even if they can’t in mortality.
 

A better example for your point is my aunt who is sealed to husband A with whom she has 6 children BIC and has very vocally said she’ll be with in the eternities. Husband A passed away in his early 60s (way too early; he was my favorite uncle). While my aunt initially said she’d never remarry, she eventually did. Husband B is nice. They are only civilly married, no possibility of children in this life, and they won’t be married in the next. So what’s the point of her second marriage in the church’s eyes?
 

In my view, she’s clearly happier being remarried, and it gives her opportunities to continue growing in Christlike characteristics. She’ll be a better person and have a better eternal marriage to husband A because of her temporal and childless marriage to husband B. It’s a good relationship, a stepping stone if you will, even though it’s not eternal. 
 

I use this example to explain why I’d encourage my children to marry if they were gay. Even assuming the church’s teaching is correct that they can become heterosexual in the next life (still a puzzle why not in this life then), and further assuming my child would make that choice, they will be better prepared for the eternal heterosexual marriage through a lifetime of shared sacrifice and growth in an earthly homosexual union than if they chose to live this life single. 

I don’t disagree with you and I think people should be happy. The church’s position is gays shouldn’t marry because they cannot procreate with each other. They are not concerned with the gay couples happiness. 
 

I’d think if Adam and Michael can create a world and populate it, a same sex  couple can populate one in the afterlife as well. 

 

*** correction Jehova and Michael

Edited July 1, 2025 by Notatbm
Wrong names

[Buckeye]

Just now, Notatbm said:

I’d think if Adam and Michael can create a world and populate it, a same sex  couple can populate one in the afterlife as well. 

 

 

I agree. FWIW, I believe all spirit children already exist. They’re not conceived or gestated. They’re found. Child birth is a purely mortal experience. Gay and Lesbian couples will find and adopt spirit children in the eternities the same as heterosexual couples. In fact, we’ll find and raise them together.

I don’t believe we have one Heavenly Father and one Heavenly Mother. We have many, in all depths of diversity. That’s why god’s name is Elohim - literally “the Gods”. Whenever we cut off part of the human race from our circles - whether due to gender, sexuality, skin color, ethnicity, whatever - we only cut ourselves off from an expression of god and deprive ourselves from learning of god through them. 

[Tacenda]

6 hours ago, Calm said:

I don’t think assuming one knows others’ motivations based on limited info is wise.  Too much error can occur and it stops communication with those one is othering by doing so, imo.  You stop really listening imo once you assume you know why (on a fundamental level) someone is saying something.

True, I guess everything he says isn't gospel truth. But not sure I understand what you're saying. Not you, it's just me.

[Calm]

11 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

True, I guess everything he says isn't gospel truth. But not sure I understand what you're saying. Not you, it's just me.

About halfway through iirc he starts explaining why people put their videos, etc out there…iirc, it was mostly they are showing to others who think like they do that they are taking risks, etc. Virtue signaling, establishing credibility with their group more or less.  He may have had some substantive stuff to say at the end, but I stop watching after while because that kind of stuff just tells me what he is thinking, not about scripture or others’ actual ideas.  If he had presented it as ‘this is what it seems to me is going on’ and not as fact, I would feel differently about it, but he himself is coming from a position of authority in that video, his expertise on scripture, so for him to continue in the same vein on something that is not scripture, that he can’t truly know is fact and is instead making assumptions about based on part on his experiences, but also most likely his own biases…this bothers me.

Edited July 1, 2025 by Calm

[Tacenda]

Just now, Calm said:

About halfway through iirc he starts explaining why people put their videos, etc out there…iirc it was mostly they are showing to others who think like they are that they are taking risks, etc. Virtue signaling more or less.  He may have had some substantive stuff to say at the end, but I stop watching after while because that kind of stuff just tells me what he is thinking, not about scripture or others’ actual ideas.  If he had presented it as ‘this is what it seems to me is going on’ and not as fact, I would feel differently about it, but he himself is coming from a position of authority in that video, his expertise on scripture, so for him to continue in the same vein on something that is not scripture, that he can’t truly know is fact and is instead making assumptions about based on part on his experiences, but also most likely his own biases…this bothers me.

I get it, thanks for the explanation. You're right, and I tend to not critically think often, or am bias. 

[california boy]

4 hours ago, Calm said:

If someone views homosexuality as part of the natural man, it makes sense to see it as a temporary state, emotion, or drive that is removed along with anything else that is carnal/part of the natural man when we turn ourselves over to God to be purified (I do wish we used a different word than “natural” in “the natural man” as we see children as “natural” in their behaviour and innocence and we certainly don’t believe that innocence is getting expunged in the next life).  I would assume most of that opinion see the same thing happening to those who have homosexual desires as those who have desires to have sexual relationships outside of marriage or even inappropriate sexual behaviour within marriage, like sexual abuse or ignoring the other’s needs in ordered to be sexually satisfied oneself.***  So not magic or even unique to homosexuality, just part of the santification and justification process of accepting Christ’s Atonement that everyone must go through for exaltation.

 

That is a big if you start your post with.  Would a person who is straight view his attraction to the opposite sex the same way a gay person views his attraction to the same sex?  Would it be considered "natural man" for the straight guy as well?  If so, then isn't everyone on a level playing field when it comes to needing to be expunged in the next life?  And wouldn't a gay person who is married be any different if he had desires to have sexual relationships outside of his marriage?  In short, what I am saying is I don't really see any shades of difference between being straight or gay, the attraction is just on a different sex other than social prejudice by some people.

4 hours ago, Calm said:

Temple work would be the same as for any single person or anyone that lacks a marriage record or any record at all for that matter (which is probably a very significant part of humanity), the information to perform temple work will have to be revealed.

So can a single person enter into the highest degree of exaltation?  Is marriage not a requirement for everyone in the highest degree of exaltation?  I remember teaching a gospel doctrine class many years ago on this issue.  The manual clearly stated that single people that die, end up being servants to those that are married.  I remember reading those statements from the manual as my single divorced sister whose previous marriage was not a temple marriage sat in the class.  It was very painful.

 

4 hours ago, Calm said:

***I assume this because this was my position in the past.  At this point I am solidly in the ‘I don’t know’ category when it comes to both homosexuality and heterosexuality, though intellectually I am leaning towards no one is going to have sexual attractions in the same way we do in mortality because the experience of eternal relationships will be so far more all encompassing of our being because we will not only have the time to develop deeper and more intense relationships but also have so much greater ability to do so because of our increased understanding of each other and ourselves.  Just think of what we could do now in our relationships of any kind if we could dump the baggage that leads to fear and holding back, absurd dislikes and reactions, etc.  Therefore, in my view there will be no need for instinctual drives or programming to help us want to act, to make decisions, or to take risks…all things necessary to create any kind of relationships in this life, but especially longterm companionship ones because of upfront and potential costs if they fail.  Plus I believe we will have so much personal self control/agency we will be able to choose our emotions and what functions as our motivators, so again sexual drives we are wired with will be a thing of the past.  We will choose who we are attracted to and why and anything else in our personality not because we are made that way either by physical attributes or social influences, but because those attributes suit what we want to become.  Of course, this becomes an issue of why we want to become what we want to become…ultimate cause and all, which is why my ultimate position is solidly “I don’t know”.

I don't think anyone knows, including Church leadership.  They all are just guessing.  In the mean time gay couples become the new black, not allowed temple blessings, priesthood and not even allowed to hold Church callings.  And like me, most leave the Church along with a lot of their family members.  Some try marrying someone of the opposite sex in hopes that somehow that might possibly be their only hope.  Most of those marriages end in disaster for all involved.  It is a policy based on "men of their times" that doesn't seem to work but will probably stay in place until new apostles who are men of a different era try to resolve this issue, perhaps by simply letting God sort it all out in the next life.

[Calm]

9 hours ago, california boy said:

 The manual clearly stated that single people that die, end up being servants to those that are married

I was always taught anyone who was deprived for reasons outside of their control (which category homosexual attraction would appear to fall into these days) would have a chance to get married in this life would have the chance in the next. Pretty sure it’s all through church teachings with blessings in general misses in this life being given in the next….though I suspect the specific marriage blessing comments has likely been directed more at single women than men since it was perceived to be more about men being able to choose or not in the vast majority of cases while women had to passively wait to be asked In the past a big issue was made of female members who chose to get married to nonmembers or outside the temple in my youth classes.  Some thought they lost their chance, others did not.

Edited July 2, 2025 by Calm

[The Nehor]

22 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

I can definitely see from a gay persons point of view how being told that in the next life we will be cool with things that make us sick in this life would be upsetting. 

It is a bit of a misconception that monosexual (straight and gay) people are repulsed and/or sickened about sexual relations or romantic relationships they don’t desire. Some find it distasteful but for a lot of people it is just “meh, not interested”. It is uncomfortable to be with someone you don’t want to be with of course.

[MustardSeed]

48 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

It is a bit of a misconception that monosexual (straight and gay) people are repulsed and/or sickened about sexual relations or romantic relationships they don’t desire. Some find it distasteful but for a lot of people it is just “meh, not interested”. It is uncomfortable to be with someone you don’t want to be with of course.

I’ll speak for myself then.  I don’t want to be sexual with anyone but my husband.  And if he ever leaves, the thought of being sexual with men outside my preferred age range, my preferred races, my preferred gender, my preferred number , my preferred everything makes me - shudder.    So I can appreciate anyone being upset at being told that they are going to have to accept something other than their preference (especially since that’s opinion afaik) 

[Doctor Steuss]

On 6/30/2025 at 12:19 AM, The Nehor said:

I hate this argument specifically because I know how many kids are stuck in the system. Even if you assume queer couples are somehow worse at parenting (no evidence backs this up) they are better than being stuck in the system forever. 

My younger sister is an MFT that works for a non-profit that provides resources exclusively to children in various stages of the system (in foster care, recently reunited with bio-parents, adopted, etc.).  Gay couple foster parents and adoptive parents have been an undeniable absolute godsend for children in the system.
 

[Tacenda]

2 hours ago, Doctor Steuss said:

My younger sister is an MFT that works for a non-profit that provides resources exclusively to children in various stages of the system (in foster care, recently reunited with bio-parents, adopted, etc.).  Gay couple foster parents and adoptive parents have been an undeniable absolute godsend for children in the system.
 

Such a good point, thank you!!

[The Nehor]

This thread is an interesting way to start Pride Month Plus.

[Kenngo1969]

On 6/29/2025 at 7:56 AM, ZealouslyStriving said:

"Pearson also shared the story of a bishop in her area who ministers to a lesbian couple in his congregation. “The bishop has said, ‘If I am ever instructed by somebody in authority above me to do anything to discipline those women, I would before that resign my post as bishop.’” ...

 

I'm late to the party, and I haven't been following the thread slavishly, so forgive me if this already has been addressed.  I have no specific comment on what, if anything, should be done regarding Latter-day Saints who are members of the Church who engage in practices [and who are involved in relationships] that are contrary to the teachings of the Church.  That said, I'm confused: Did this bishop, in anything other than the usual "whom-the-Lord-calls-the-Lord-qualifies" sense, qualify for the position?  Did he apply for it?  Did he submit a resume?  Was he subjected to a competitive hiring process?  If the answer to all of these questions is, "No," then why is he talking about "resigning [his] position," as though he did take all of those steps to get that position? 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

33 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

I'm late to the party, and I haven't been following the thread slavishly, so forgive me if this already has been addressed.  I have no specific comment on what, if anything, should be done regarding Latter-day Saints who are members of the Church who engage in practices [and who are involved in relationships] that are contrary to the teachings of the Church.  That said, I'm confused: Did this bishop, in anything other than the usual "whom-the-Lord-calls-the-Lord-qualifies" sense, qualify for the position?  Did he apply for it?  Did he submit a resume?  Was he subjected to a competitive hiring process?  If the answer to all of these questions is, "No," then why is he talking about "resigning [his] position," as though he did take all of those steps to get that position? 

Resign: “voluntarily leave a job or other position.”  Hope this helps

[The Nehor]

37 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

I'm late to the party, and I haven't been following the thread slavishly, so forgive me if this already has been addressed.  I have no specific comment on what, if anything, should be done regarding Latter-day Saints who are members of the Church who engage in practices [and who are involved in relationships] that are contrary to the teachings of the Church.  That said, I'm confused: Did this bishop, in anything other than the usual "whom-the-Lord-calls-the-Lord-qualifies" sense, qualify for the position?  Did he apply for it?  Did he submit a resume?  Was he subjected to a competitive hiring process?  If the answer to all of these questions is, "No," then why is he talking about "resigning [his] position," as though he did take all of those steps to get that position? 

You can resign from volunteer positions.

[Kenngo1969]

8 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Resign: “voluntarily leave a job or other position.”  Hope this helps

Thanks for the language lesson.  I found it invaluable.    How does the rest of the world possibly live without your unquestionable brilliance?    It's positively baffling, really!  Ah, well ... back to lurking ... or ignoring the Board entirely (which ... Ahem! ... includes you, in case you're, y'know, wondering about that! )  

Just sayin'!  

[The Nehor]

7 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Thanks for the language lesson.  I found it invaluable.    How does the rest of the world possibly live without your unquestionable brilliance?    It's positively baffling, really!  Ah, well ... back to lurking ... or ignoring the Board entirely (which ... Ahem! ... includes you, in case you're, y'know, wondering about that! )  

Just sayin'!  

Are you okay?

[Kenngo1969]

29 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Are you okay?

I'm fine.  I'm touched, deeply, by your [no-doubt-genuine and deeply-heartfelt] concern, but it isn't necessary, I assure you.  Thanks.

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Thanks for the language lesson.  I found it invaluable.    How does the rest of the world possibly live without your unquestionable brilliance?    It's positively baffling, really!  Ah, well ... back to lurking ... or ignoring the Board entirely (which ... Ahem! ... includes you, in case you're, y'know, wondering about that! )  

Just sayin'!  

I have resigned (what else would you call it if not resigned?) from several callings when health or family needs interfered with fulfilling them decently.

Serious question, what else would you call resigning besides resigning?  Resigning sounds much better to me than “quitting” which is the other option Alexa came up with for me.  
 

And please continue posting as I enjoy your POV even if at times I disagree or am even confused.  
 

If your point was something different as in the bishop was talking as if his resignation could be used as leverage to get different treatment as might happen if someone threatens a strike or boycott, I would agree that is not how it will go down if he does resign, though it would be temporarily disruptive and may create some unhappiness in the ward.

I think it needs to be mentioned it was Pearson reporting what the bishop said, so he might not have handled/spoken of it in the same way.

Edited July 9, 2025 by Calm

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

I have resigned (what else would you call it if not resigned?) from several callings when health or family needs interfered with fulfilling them decently.

Serious question, what else would you call resigning besides resigning?  Resigning sounds much better to me than “quitting” which is the other option Alexa came up with for me.  
 

And please continue posting as I enjoy your POV even if at times I disagree or am even confused.  
 

If your point was something different as in the bishop was talking as if his resignation could be used as leverage to get different treatment as might happen if someone threatens a strike or boycott, I would agree that is not how it will go down if he does resign, though it would be temporarily disruptive and may create some unhappiness in the ward.

I think it needs to be mentioned it was Pearson reporting what the bishop said, so he might not have handled/spoken of it in the same way.

I've never personally heard it called resigning when someone quits a calling, but I think it's a valid use of the word and people might be using it without me being aware.  I think I've only ever heard it referred to as 'asked to be released' in a church setting.  I've heard the phrase resigning  when it's from a volunteer position in a nonchurch setting a lot.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

4 minutes ago, bluebell said:

  I think I've only ever heard it referred to as 'asked to be released'

I feel like there is a subtle difference in that by “asking” you are accepting that it’s ultimately not your call. Resigning is the equivalent of “I quit”. 

[bluebell]

23 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I feel like there is a subtle difference in that by “asking” you are accepting that it’s ultimately not your call. Resigning is the equivalent of “I quit”. 

Maybe. I've never heard of anyone using that phrase who didn't know they could just walk away whenever they wanted. 

Personally, I think the phrase is used most often because.....it's used most often.  It's probably more a cultural habit than it is anything else.  A habit which came from a tradition of showing respect to the bishop, who is in charge of callings in a ward, and that now carries on because it's part of the lexicon of church membership (in some areas).

My husband is currently contemplating "asking to be released" from his calling because of his workload, and I've never met anyone less tolerant of being told what to do (and who cares less about what people think of him) than he is.   I guarantee he's not using the phrase because he accepts that it's not his call.   

[Calm]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

I've never personally heard it called resigning when someone quits a calling, but I think it's a valid use of the word and people might be using it without me being aware.  I think I've only ever heard it referred to as 'asked to be released' in a church setting.  I've heard the phrase resigning  when it's from a volunteer position in a nonchurch setting a lot.

I think of it as me resigning/quitting using the process of being asked to be released.  It’s not like I would keep doing it if they refused (I resign only when I need to resign)
 

I was heavily preoccupied with applying for SS benefits (only took two weeks to finally make an online application work, I recommended ID.me rather than login.gov because ID has the option of doing it by video if the process goes wrong), so I am guessing that is why it didn’t occur to me Ken was probably thinking of “.asking to be released”.

Saying I have been released or I have asked to be released doesn’t sound specific enough to me as in the first might be not me asking and the second might be uncompleted.  Maybe that is why I think of it as resigning/quitting in my head.

Edited July 9, 2025 by Calm