Becomming Straight

[JRG39402]

I refer people to http://www.exodus.to/

[Daniel2]

I refer people to http://www.exodus.to/

Hi, Justin,

Exodus International is certainly one of the most well-known religiously-based programs catering to those who "want to be free from homosexuality within their lives" (whatever that may mean). Probably the best known in LDS circles is Evergreen International, rather like Exodus, but with an LDS slant:

http://www.evergreeninternational.org/

Others that I personally heavily invensted in, as I was going through reparative/re-orientation therapy, included:

http://www.narth.com/

http://www.peoplecanchange.com/

http://www.disciples2.org/

There are many others out there, as virtually every major religion has a similar-type organization with its own particular flavor of religion which promises "freedom from homosexuality" in accordance with its own unique doctrines.

A couple of other sources which I found helpful in providing alternate viewpoints are:

http://www.affirmation.org/

http://www.exgaywatch.com/

http://www.beyondexgay.com/

http://www.truthwinsout.org/

http://allgodschildren.blogspot.com/

Thanks,

Daniel

[Bach]

Actually it does.

You assumed that everyone accepts "consenting adults" as a shared moral criterion. Your assumption was simply wrong.

No, I posited that "consenting adults" is the only moral criterion that even might be shared by everyone. As this thread has progressed, it's been discovered that this criterion is not universal. So, there aren't any uncontroversial systems of morality in sight, yet selek has stated quite forthrightly that homosexuality is uncontroversially immoral, and not just immoral according to the dictates of his conscience. It seems, then, that selek has inadequate justification for his views.

As you perfectly well know, and contrary to what you have tried to pretend, I did not introduce crack addicts into the discussion; nor did I "choose crack addicts as a group to compare homosexuals to." I chose to stick a pin in your pompous moralising bloviations.

Okay, I see now that you did not introduce the crack addict/homosexual analogy, so I was wrong there. To my credit, though, you seem to have accepted the main thrust of the comparison -- that homosexuals are no better than crack addicts -- and gone one step further -- homosexuals are worse than crack addicts. So you deserve as much castigation here as does selek, in my view.

I fail entirely to see how freedom of speech has anything at all to do with the morality of homosexual acts. Care to explain it to me?

It's not merely freedom of speech, it's also freedom of religion, which is usually undergirded by the general ideal of freedom of thought in practice. You obviously despise anti-Mormons for picking on your minority religious viewpoint, when in reality your choice to be Mormon doesn't negatively affect them in the slightest; I wonder how you don't simultaneously despise yourself for not treating homosexuals with the same courtesy you expect from others.

Not that I'd expect you to know, or even be capable of grasping this, Bach, but if there is or ever could be such a thing as absolute morality, its validity would have absolutely nothing to do with its popularity.

You think that I, as a supporter of freedom for homosexuals, don't appreciate this fact? Come now, Pahoran. All I was doing here was showing you how ugly intolerance for alternative lifestyles can be by reminding you that your lifestyle is considerably out of the mainstream as well.

[Daniel2]

Going back a couple pages to some of the issues that I had mentioned I'd like to get back to, once I had the time...

That's because your "understanding," being driven by your polemical agenda, is necessarily faulty.

Actually, Pahoran, my "understanding" of the passages in question had nothing to do with my current "polemical" agenda, as you call it. My "understanding" of the passages I quoted was based on years of devotion as a faithful Latter-day Saint who desperately struggled to control his thoughts and desires in accordance with the teachings I constantly heard hammered into my head in Sunday School, Priesthood, Firesides, and other teachings.

I'm glad that both you and Bach questioned my reading of the passages in question. I hope that calling further attention to the issue will allow me to attempt to explain my understanding in ways that might make more sense to those who do not struggle against unwanted feelings of homosexuality, as I did for so long during the course of my youth and the early years of my adulthood.

See.... here's my struggle, as I always experienced it: For straight guys, there were times when it was appropriate to allow their heterosexual desires to emerge. In fact, not only were there times in which it was appropriate, but it was expected, even a divine duty. The decree to find a mate with whom to walk through life, so as not to "be alone" (a state that God himself decreed to be "not good") is drilled into every young Latter-day Saint, upon returning from a worthy mission. Strict guidelines are given about appropriate dating behaviors upon reaching the age of sixteen. While heterosexuals might view those guidelines as prohibitive (meaning, as "limits imposed to control the raging hormones of teenagers and keep them within the bounds the Lord has set"), the underlying assumption was always that the teens receiving such instruction were straight. For me, a young gay kid, the guidelines were not "prohibitive," but were, in fact, "prescriptive." It was not about what NOT to do--it was VERY much about TRYING HARD to do something that I was FAILING miserably at doing--that is, trying to find a normal, heterosexual libido in myself somewhere. The gulf between what I was trying to feel, and the crushes I actually was having on other guys (the captain of the football team, who's locker was next to mine in the locker room, and whom I shyly undressed next to every day after a rugged day of practice... or the moustached, ruggedly-handsome, thirty-something Chemistry teacher, who's eyes bored right through me whenever he taught the latest ways that particles attracted one another...) seemed unbridgeable.

Unfortunately, I couldn't force myself to feel those things. Every time I heard condemnations against evil thoughts, and the need to maintain a clean mind, I was continually reminded that I was "doing" my crushes wrong--NOT that those crushes were lust-filled, sexually pornographic fanatsies--I had never seen pornography, and I had no idea what I would have done with either the captain of the football team or my dreamy teacher, even if I HAD ever been in a compromising position with them, and they were willing to explore a romantic interlude of any sort... But... what was "the desire of my heart" in those moments...? What was it that I longed for? What was it that I day-dreamed about? If I had died in any of those moments, and God had pulled up what was in my mind, what would he have seen? For a straight kid, none of those crushes or fantasies would have been sexual in nature, they would have been seen as healthy, normal steps in a straight kids' psychosexual and emotional being. For a gay kid, I felt as if the mountains should have been pulled down over my head, fearful of God's eternal wrath. I had been to Semindary. Try as I might, when my mind was free to wander into the unaware twilight along the boarder of self-consciousness and stream-of-consciousness, it often ended up wandering down those condemned, abominable, and dispicable pathways. The entropy of my attractions would always end up in dangers dissolutions, even when they WEREN'T sexual or pornographic. How could I have assumed that God would not condemn me, for being a person who's natural desires were SO contrary to his plan, and which were NEVER in accordance which that which was deemed appropriate, from the pulpit?

How many times has it been said that two gay men would NOT be allowed to hold hands, or kiss, or snuggle, or hug, or cuddle, merely because "it might lead to other things"? And yet, straight couples are ROUTINELY encouraged to engage in such behaviors. How can a gay LDS kid, trying to navigate the MINEFIELD of his own MIND, ever hope to not get snagged in an explosion of normal emotional or romantic or sexual desire for a boy his age? How can he not look upon himself with disgust, somehow finding comfort that "its not the attraction, but the action that's a sin"?! How many times did I hear one of the twelve apostles say, "As a man thinketh in his heart, so is he..."

No, Pahoran... my "understanding" was NOT driven by my current "polemic agenda." It was VERY much driven by the anti-gay "polemic agenda" of my LDS past.

Thus we see that the sin is not in the desire, but in the actions. Your claim that this is a "recently emerged teaching" is simply false.

The current teaching that the sin is not in the desire, but in the actions, was NEVER taught, at any time during my youth. Believe me... I knew who I was, and what my attractions were, from the time I was very young. As such, I HUNG on EVERY word issues by any general authority regarding homosexual attractions. I desperately tried to impliment everything they said on the subject, because I desperately wanted to be everything I wasn't. You may state with assumed authority that my claim that "it is a recently emerged teaching" is false, but I can tell you, it was NEVER talked about, in my youth, and has only been subtly introduced in more recent years, as homosexuality has emerged with more prominence in our culture, thus calling for a new, more 'compassionate' tactic.

Today, I know many individuals who were, in fact, excommunicated for "homosexuality" in past years, not only for "homosexual acts." I stand fully behind the idea that the idea of "the act, not the thought" is a more recent teaching.

Thanks again for the opportunity to clarify.

My view,

Daniel

[Pahoran]

Going back a couple pages to some of the issues that I had mentioned I'd like to get back to, once I had the time...

Actually, Pahoran, my "understanding" of the passages in question had nothing to do with my current "polemical" agenda, as you call it. My "understanding" of the passages I quoted was based on years of devotion as a faithful Latter-day Saint who desperately struggled, etc, etc.

Pardon me interrupting your deeply personal soul-baring, Daniel, but you always do this: whenever you are challenged about some assertion you've made about LDS life and teaching, you invariably appeal to some personal experience which no-one can ever check up on, but which is always deeply and desperately important to you, such that only the most callous boor would be so crass as to challenge it.

Clever tactic, that.

However, the bottom line is this: your argument was (1) a specific assertion about LDS doctrine, which (2) is and always was wrong.

Per the advice given by Kirk and Madsen in After The Ball you do a very creditable job in advancing the gay agenda in this forum, as is of course your right. You have succeeded in mobilising your supporters; you have done a pretty decent job at jamming or converting the ambivalent; and you are doing your best to silence the intransigents, like me.

Alas, you won't succeed at that last one.

Back to the question of LDS doctrine at hand: as Jesus taught, our thoughts are relevant because they are the father of our deeds. As Jesus taught, we need to control our thoughts and avoid seeking out stimuli that contribute to unclean thoughts. But, as one seminary teacher (in the early 1970's) put it, quoting a Mission President from before the start of his CES career, "you can't stop the birds flying over your head, but you don't have to let them build a nest in your hair." IOW, thoughts--including temptations--will come to us unbidden, and that is not a sin. It never has been a sin. Let's be clear on that point, shall we?

It only becomes a sin when we begin to entertain such thoughts. But even then, the sin is a private one that is not subject to Church discipline.

And never has been.

That's just the way it is.

The rest of your post is pretty much "all about you." This thread is not.

No, Pahoran... my "understanding" was NOT driven by my current "polemic agenda." It was VERY much driven by the anti-gay "polemic agenda" of my LDS past.

No such thing has ever existed. As you know.

Oh, I'll grant you that the Church has always taught against giving in to temptation of every kind. The call to a higher kind of life is a challenging one, but the particular sins you love to wallow in have never been singled out for special attention. Nor are you and your fellow "gays" alone in failing to meet the challenge; your failure actually puts you in the majority. The only way in which you are unique is that no other group of sinners that I know of has ever been so arrogant as to demand that the Church accept their sins as acceptable forms of behaviour, as if such acceptance would actually make them so.

The current teaching that the sin is not in the desire, but in the actions, was NEVER taught, at any time during my youth.

Yes. It was.

Continuously and without interruption.

And if you failed to grasp it, that's not the Church's fault.

I am fifty years old. This has been standard (and unremarkable) LDS doctrine all of my life. Any assertion to the contrary is either ignorant or mendacious.

You may state with assumed authority that my claim that "it is a recently emerged teaching" is false, but I can tell you, it was NEVER talked about, in my youth, and has only been subtly introduced in more recent years, as homosexuality has emerged with more prominence in our culture, thus calling for a new, more 'compassionate' tactic.

I'm sure you'd like to believe that. It would give you all a reason to feel more important in the grand scheme of things.

However, I see a parallel between this and a phenomenon I noticed a few years ago when I did an informal survey of some discussions and fiction--I won't call it literature--produced by various groups of sexual deviants. That phenomenon was that they all thought that everyone in mainstream society was deeply troubled by their particular deviance, mostly because we all secretly shared it. Thus, when they didn't get mentioned, it was because everyone was afraid of them, but when they got criticised, the critic was merely trying to compensate for his own suppressed fantasies. The fiction frequently featured some prim, strait-laced person having the group's preferred deviance forced upon them, whereupon they would immediately become addicted thereto.

And I found that homosexual discussions and fiction fell entirely into this same pattern. Which isn't surprising, really.

No, Daniel, you're just not that important, Kirk and Madsen notwithstanding. From April 6, 1830, the Church's invitation to come unto Christ has always been accompanied by his injunction to "go and sin no more." That's also just the way it is.

Today, I know many individuals who were, in fact, excommunicated for "homosexuality" in past years, not only for "homosexual acts."

Another assertion no-one can check.

I stand fully behind the idea that the idea of "the act, not the thought" is a more recent teaching.

I'm sure you do.

But you are still wrong.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Son]

Pardon me interrupting your deeply personal soul-baring, Daniel, but you always do this: whenever you are challenged about some assertion you've made about LDS life and teaching, you invariably appeal to some personal experience which no-one can ever check up on, but which is always deeply and desperately important to you, such that only the most callous boor would be so crass as to challenge it.

Clever tactic, that.

However, the bottom line is this: your argument was (1) a specific assertion about LDS doctrine, which (2) is and always was wrong.

Per the advice given by Kirk and Madsen in After The Ball you do a very creditable job in advancing the gay agenda in this forum, as is of course your right. You have succeeded in mobilising your supporters; you have done a pretty decent job at jamming or converting the ambivalent; and you are doing your best to silence the intransigents, like me.

Alas, you won't succeed at that last one.

Back to the question of LDS doctrine at hand: as Jesus taught, our thoughts are relevant because they are the father of our deeds. As Jesus taught, we need to control our thoughts and avoid seeking out stimuli that contribute to unclean thoughts. But, as one seminary teacher (in the early 1970's) put it, quoting a Mission President from before the start of his CES career, "you can't stop the birds flying over your head, but you don't have to let them build a nest in your hair." IOW, thoughts--including temptations--will come to us unbidden, and that is not a sin. It never has been a sin. Let's be clear on that point, shall we?

It only becomes a sin when we begin to entertain such thoughts. But even then, the sin is a private one that is not subject to Church discipline.

And never has been.

That's just the way it is.

The rest of your post is pretty much "all about you." This thread is not.

No such thing has ever existed. As you know.

Oh, I'll grant you that the Church has always taught against giving in to temptation of every kind. The call to a higher kind of life is a challenging one, but the particular sins you love to wallow in have never been singled out for special attention. Nor are you and your fellow "gays" alone in failing to meet the challenge; your failure actually puts you in the majority. The only way in which you are unique is that no other group of sinners that I know of has ever been so arrogant as to demand that the Church accept their sins as acceptable forms of behaviour, as if such acceptance would actually make them so.

Yes. It was.

Continuously and without interruption.

And if you failed to grasp it, that's not the Church's fault.

I am fifty years old. This has been standard (and unremarkable) LDS doctrine all of my life. Any assertion to the contrary is either ignorant or mendacious.

I'm sure you'd like to believe that. It would give you all a reason to feel more important in the grand scheme of things.

However, I see a parallel between this and a phenomenon I noticed a few years ago when I did an informal survey of some discussions and fiction--I won't call it literature--produced by various groups of sexual deviants. That phenomenon was that they all thought that everyone in mainstream society was deeply troubled by their particular deviance, mostly because we all secretly shared it. Thus, when they didn't get mentioned, it was because everyone was afraid of them, but when they got criticised, the critic was merely trying to compensate for his own suppressed fantasies. The fiction frequently featured some prim, strait-laced person having the group's preferred deviance forced upon them, whereupon they would immediately become addicted thereto.

And I found that homosexual discussions and fiction fell entirely into this same pattern. Which isn't surprising, really.

No, Daniel, you're just not that important, Kirk and Madsen notwithstanding. From April 6, 1830, the Church's invitation to come unto Christ has always been accompanied by his injunction to "go and sin no more." That's also just the way it is.

Another assertion no-one can check.

I'm sure you do.

But you are still wrong.

Regards,

Pahoran

SSSNNNAP!!!, that was some tough love going on there.