New Official Pamphlet On "same-sex Attraction"

[Joseph Antley]

http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,695195383,00.html

LDS Church leaders have posted a new pamphlet on their Web site this week, answering questions often raised by church members regarding same-sex attraction and how to deal with it.

The new resource, which is being announced through a letter to LDS bishops and stake presidents, seeks to assure troubled church members of God's love despite challenges and questions, "including some related to same-gender attractions, (that) must await a future answer, even in the next life."

It does not touch on scientific theories about homosexuality or its origins but addresses how to deal with it from a spiritual perspective. The text uses the term "same-gender attraction" rather than "gay" or "homosexual" to distinguish between a lifestyle choice and an attraction only.

The three-page document, expected to be made available soon in print form at the church's official Distribution Centers, is written in much the same tone as that used by top church leaders within the past decade, seeking to reach out and reassure Latter-day Saints that such "attractions alone do not make you unworthy."

"If you avoid immoral thoughts and actions, you have not transgressed (God's law of chastity) even if you feel such an attraction," it states, a point that has been emphasized by church President Gordon B. Hinckley and other top church leaders.

Nice to see the Church talking openly about this, and that we're not as fanatical as some EV's who claim there's no such thing as natural homosexuality.

[cinepro]

http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,695195383,00.html

Nice to see the Church talking openly about this, and that we're not as fanatical as some EV's who claim there's no such thing as natural homosexuality.

Jeez, that's pretty fanatical. I'm also glad we don't believe that masturbation leads to homosexuality.

[PhilipTraum]

If that were true homosexuality would be an epidemic!

[katherine the great]

Nice to see the Church talking openly about this

Yes, this is encouraging.

[fatherofone]

"Pruden said the effort to produce such an official church document has been under way for at least a decade, and as church members deal more openly with the topic, a new resource was necessary. Opinions and input were sought from across a wide spectrum of LDS professionals and scholars."

that is from the article, so the question becomes was God's opinion looked for in making this document?

[Tchild2]

that is from the article, so the question becomes was God's opinion looked for in making this document?

Based on the past pamphlets and their differences of just a few decades past, it is hard to see God's opinion anywhere. Unless God has evolved since the 70's and the church is just reflecting that everlasting being's changing thoughts on the subject?

[fatherofone]

Based on the past pamphlets and their differences of just a few decades past, it is hard to see God's opinion anywhere. Unless God has evolved since the 70's and the church is just reflecting that everlasting being's changing thoughts on the subject?

agreed, perhaps I have heard enough, maybe this is not his church after all, if we consult scholars for policy now, instead of "on going revelation"

[jadams_4242]

http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,695195383,00.html

Nice to see the Church talking openly about this, and that we're not as fanatical as some EV's who claim there's no such thing as natural homosexuality.

So now all the Anti Gay preachers can try and bottle us up with the church back east

that excepts gays into there church, And we are not saying they will be able to receive the preisthood

or baptism e.t.c... but we "do" accept they are humam beings and are willing to do Gods real

work to try and show the gay the path as well. Instead of condeming them all to hell as a whole

lot of "christians" do today. I beleive what the l.d.s church is doing, is truely Gods way and not the

self rightgeous biggets that profess to be true "Christians".

[selek]

TChild, Fo1, your cyncism is blinding you. Have either of you bothered to actually read the pamphlet or are you merely spouting off at the mouths again?

You are a son or daughter of God,and our hearts reach out to you in warmth and affection. Notwithstanding your present same-gender attractions, you can be happy during this life, lead a morally clean life, perform meaningful service in the Church, enjoy full fellowship with your fellow Saints, and ultimately receive all the blessings of eternal life.

This is consistent with God's stated goals for his children. Kinda hard to claim that keeping God's commandments stands in contradiction to his opinions!

The Book of Mormon prophet Nephi voiced feelings we all have when he acknowledged that he did not â??know the meaning of all things.â? But he testified, â??I know that [God] loveth his childrenâ? (1 Nephi 11:17). God does indeed love all His children. Many questions, however, including some related to same-gender attractions, must await a future answer, even in the next life. But God has revealed simple, unchanging truths to guide us. He loves all His children, and because He loves you, you can trust Him.

This is either factual, or is, at least, accepted as truth among the faithful Latter-day Saints. There's really not much about opinion here one way or the other.

Your Identity and Potential

You are a precious son or daughter of God. He not only knows your name; He knows you. His love for you is individual. You lived in His presence before you were born on this earth. You cannot remember your premortal relationship with Him, but He does. Although His children may sometimes do things that disappoint Him, He will always love them.

When you know who you are and are comfortable in the assurance that God loves you, you can more easily understand what He wants for you. He wants you to have all of the blessings of eternal life. Eternal life means much more than long or unending life. To obtain eternal life means to become like Heavenly Father, to live like Him, and to receive a fulness of joy. You can receive eternal life if you abide by the same laws as God and do the things He does.

Again, wholly consistent with God's revelations. Not much contradiction of opinion here.

The Plan of Happiness

God has provided the plan of salvation, or plan of happiness, to help you receive the blessings of eternal life. This plan is set forth in the scriptures; men and women cannot rewrite it to accommodate their desires. God alone gives the reward of eternal life. Some of the greatest blessings promised by the plan, including eternal life, are not intended for immediate enjoyment. Eternity is long, and mortality is short. As you base your decisions on eternal principles rather than on earthly challenges or desires, you can have â??peace in this world, and eternal life in the world to comeâ? (D&C 59:23).

These blessings are based on obedience to eternal principles. The importance of families is one of these principles. Heaven is organized by families, which require a man and a woman who together exercise their creative powers within the bounds the Lord has set. Same-gender relationships are inconsistent with this plan. Without both a husband and a wife there would be no eternal family and no opportunity to become like Heavenly Father.

Nor here.

In some circumstances a person defers marriage because he or she is not presently attracted to a member of the opposite gender. While many Latter-day Saints, through individual effort, the exercise of faith, and reliance upon the enabling power of the Atonement, overcome same-gender attraction in mortality, others may not be free of this challenge in this life.

Perhaps the most controversial of the passages, this still doesn't contradict God's stated opinions (which come through revelation).

However, the perfect plan of our Father in Heaven makes provision for individuals who seek to keep His commandments but who, through no fault of their own, do not have an eternal marriage in mortal life. As we follow Heavenly Fatherâ??s plan, our bodies, feelings, and desires will be perfected in the next life so that every one of Godâ??s children may find joy in a family consisting of a husband, a wife, and children.

Same-gender attractions include deep emotional, social, and physical feelings. All of Heavenly Fatherâ??s children desire to love and be loved, including many adults who, for a variety of reasons, remain single. God assures His children, including those currently attracted to persons of the same gender, that their righteous desires will eventually be fully satisfied in Godâ??s own way and according to His timing.

Not here either.

Self-Mastery

In order to qualify for the blessings of our Heavenly Fatherâ??s plan, each of us was sent to this earth for a period of probation, during which we face a variety of temptations and challenges. Some of these challenges are associated with our physical bodies. Because we did not possess physical bodies before this life, we must learn to live with their inadequacies and interpret their signals, urges, and needs. And we must often learn to say â??no.â? This self-mastery of the physical body is very important because we will possess these bodies, in perfected form, in the next life.

Our bodies are sacred; they are sometimes referred to in the scriptures as â??temples of God.â? Many people with same-gender attraction respect the sacredness of their bodies and the standards God has setâ??that sexuality be expressed â??only between man and woman, lawfully wedded as husband and wifeâ? (â??The Family: A Proclamation to the World,â? Ensign, Nov. 1995, 102). The lives of these individuals are pleasing to our Father in Heaven. Some, however, cross this boundary and indulge in immoral conduct. The desire for physical gratification does not authorize immorality by anyone.

Still no contradiction. Still wholly consistent with God's stated opinions on the matter.

True happiness depends on more than the expression of physical urges. These urges diminish as more fundamental emotional needs are metâ??such as the need to interact with and serve others. True happiness comes from self-control, self-respect, and positive direction in life. It comes from a testimony of true doctrineâ??including who you are and who you may becomeâ??and from living according to Godâ??s plan of happiness.

Many people with same-gender attractions have strong testimonies of the gospel and, therefore, do not act on those attractions. Attractions alone do not make you unworthy. If you avoid immoral thoughts and actions, you have not transgressed even if you feel such an attraction. The First Presidency stated, â??There is a distinction between immoral thoughts and feelings and participating in either immoral heterosexual or any homosexual behaviorâ? (letter, Nov. 14, 1991).

[Ihearya]

Homosexuality is a big issue not only in the world but with some members as well. It's good to see that there is some sort of statement about it. Homosexuality, regardless of which gender, male-male or female-female, doesn't seem to match the notion of eternal families, marriage in the temple, the ability to procreate, Priesthood position, etc. So I would tend to think that it is against the Lord's will.

I have heard that it is acceptable to have 'attraction towards the opposite sex' but not act upon it physically. That the act is what constitutes a sin. I have a hard time with this logic for the simple reason that Masturbation tends to follow the same principle where the fantasy/thoughts or desires are only on on the mind of the individual and not in some prohibited sexual act in physical form. It's as lonely as the so called "attraction" that's not acted upon.

The dictionary defines "attraction" as:

Definition: interest

Synonyms: allure, allurement, appeal, attractiveness, bait, captivation, charm, chemistry, come-on*, courting, draw, drawing power, enchantment, endearment, enthrallment, enticement, fascination, gravitation, inclination, inducement, interest, invitation, lure, magnetism, pull, seduction, solicitation, temptation, tendency

Antonyms: aversion, repellant, repulsion

I just wanted to know if God is against homosexuality and/or homosexuals. There ought to be a simple answer as explicit as the 10 Commandments. For example: Thou SHALL NOT commit Adultery. That's pretty straight forward. Or, Thou shall not Steal. Ditto. But there is nothing that says:

Thou Shall Not Be A Homosexual.

This would really clarify things once and for all. So, What's God's will Today on this issue? Pro, Against, Tolerant? Undecided? I would really like to know from those who can communicate with Him what His Will is in this regard.

If "same sex" attraction is tolerated, can a person be baptized into the Church if these tendencies are known in advance?

[fatherofone]

TChild, Fo1, your cyncism is blinding you. Have either of you bothered to actually read the pamphlet or are you merely spouting off at the mouths again?

This is consistent with God's stated goals for his children. Kinda hard to claim that keeping God's commandments stands in contradiction to his opinions!

This is either factual, or is, at least, accepted as truth among the faithful Latter-day Saints. There's really not much about opinion here one way or the other.

Again, wholly consistent with God's revelations. Not much contradiction of opinion here.

Nor here.

Perhaps the most controversial of the passages, this still doesn't contradict God's stated opinions (which come through revelation).

Not here either.

Still no contradiction. Still wholly consistent with God's stated opinions on the matter.

Hmmm.....we're almost out of pamphlet, and everything is still consistent with what God has made known. Are you sure you bothered to read the pamphlet before sounding off?

Nothing controversial here (except perhaps for those who are more interested in pursuing their lusts instead of righteousness).

Nothing. This isn't looking good for the naysayers and Pharisees.

OOohhh!!!!! Now this is controversial! Where did God ever say we were to love our fellow man as ourselves and behave with Christian charity toward our fellows? Surely this contradicts God's opinion! Doesn't it?

Yep- that's an issue- cuz God always said to blame others for your issues. Didn't he?

But where's the hell-fire and damnation? Surely the LDS God is a vengeful God with no sympathy for his creations!?!

Doggone it! Doesn't the Prophet know he can't say things like this just because the Lord wills it? This upsets to many zealots! He should be punished for stating things like this- it's not the Lord has made it clear for the last hundred and eighty years (in this dispensation alone).

Drat- nothing in here that contradicts the will or stated position of the Lord- merely a call to spiritual strength, fellowship, and obedience to Gospel Principles.

Aside from the fact that neither TChild nor Father of One bothered to read the pamphlet before condemning it, they are arguing from ignorance. Just because this piece was composed by scholars does not provide evidence that it is not inspired.

Perhaps TChild and Father of One might wait until they are called to speak for the Lord before they decide to tell us precisely what his opinions might be.

Otherwise, the beer bottles are too easy to knock down.

nor does it prove that it was inspired, I take issue with saying that I am arguing from ignorance, i did read the pamphlet. In any event I took issue with the fact that it said scholars were consulted and not the Lord

[SolarPowered]

I just wanted to know if God is against homosexuality and/or homosexuals. There ought to be a simple answer as explicit as the 10 Commandments. For example: Thou SHALL NOT commit Adultery. That's pretty straight forward. Or, Thou shall not Steal. Ditto. But there is nothing that says:

Thou Shall Not Be A Homosexual.

This would really clarify things once and for all. So, What's God's will Today on this issue? Pro, Against, Tolerant? Undecided? I would really like to know from those who can communicate with Him what His Will is in this regard.

I think you answered your own question there: "Thou SHALT NOT commit adultery." That pretty much covers it in my book.

However, if you need some more, how about Leviticus 20:13: "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."

There are still others it you wish.

[Ihearya]

I think you answered your own question there: "Thou SHALT NOT commit adultery." That pretty much covers it in my book.

However, if you need some more, how about Leviticus 20:13: "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."

There are still others it you wish.

Well, Adultery, yes...It just never occurred to me that Adultery could also mean "adulterating" your body in terms of its natural / unnatural functions. I am familiar with the scripture you quoted. If we believe in that scripture, should we simply say, sorry, we're against homosexuality but you need to be cautious how you use your free agency? I don't know. What would Christ do? The adulteress. He didn't cast any stones upon her nor did he condemn her. I guess we should do likewise but I don't think he endorsed what she did. He simply gave her a chance to go and SIN NO MORE. But if she sinned again, what would He do? Same thing? Hard to tell.

[SolarPowered]

I am familiar with the scripture you quoted. If we believe in that scripture, should we simply say, sorry, we're against homosexuality but you need to be cautious how you use your free agency? I don't know.

The scripture says what it says. Homosexuality is an abomination worthy of death.

What would Christ do? The adulteress. He didn't cast any stones upon her nor did he condemn her. I guess we should do likewise but I don't think he endorsed what she did. He simply gave her a chance to go and SIN NO MORE. But if she sinned again, what would He do? Same thing? Hard to tell.

As you point out, all he did was not condem her to death, which would have been a violation of Roman law if he did so. This was a trap that was laid for Him, that He cleverly sidestepped with this gambit. As you say, He told her "Go, and sin no more." He foregave her of the sin she had committed; he did not repeal the law against adultery.

Pretty much, this has no relevance to you question of whether homosexuality is a sin.

[selek]

nor does it prove that it was inspired, I take issue with saying that I am arguing from ignorance, i did read the pamphlet. In any event I took issue with the fact that it said scholars were consulted and not the Lord

I suggest that you are arguing from ignorance about whether the pamphlet was inspired because as you admit, you don't know. Ignorance, in contrast to stupidity, is a lack of knowledge.

Despite that admitted lack of knowledge, you still condemn the pamphlet as being uninspired.

You don't know the truth of the matter, but you're willing to make derogatory statements which might you might not were you a little less ignorant.

And while scholars were consulted, you have no evidence that those scholars were not themselves inspired, nor that the Church leadership (who are inspired) did not review the matter and submit it for approval.

You simply make a bare-butted assumption and then start condemning people and things.

That is, if I'm not mistaken, a classic example of arguing from ignorance.

[fatherofone]

I suggest that you are arguing from ignorance about whether the pamphlet was inspired because as you admit, you don't know. Ignorance, in contrast to stupidity, is a lack of knowledge.

Despite that admitted lack of knowledge, you still condemn the pamphlet as being uninspired.

You don't know the truth of the matter, but you're willing to make derogatory statements which might you might not were you a little less ignorant.

And while scholars were consulted, you have no evidence that those scholars were not themselves inspired, nor that the Church leadership (who are inspired) did not review the matter and submit it for approval.

You simply make a bare-butted assumption and then start condemning people and things.

That is, if I'm not mistaken, a classic example of arguing from ignorance.

I have no desire to argue, so I will stop, was not trying to be derogatory at all, was simply saying that consulting scholars would sound like something I would expect from other religions, not ours, I would expect ours to inquire of the lord and say that they did is all I was trying to say. Sorry for the offense if there was one

[selek]

I have no desire to argue, so I will stop, was not trying to be derogatory at all, was simply saying that consulting scholars would sound like something I would expect from other religions, not ours, I would expect ours to inquire of the lord and say that they did is all I was trying to say. Sorry for the offense if there was one

I took no offense, and I hope that I have given none in return.

I realize (in retrospect) that my attempt to differentiate between ignorance and stupidity could have looked very much like an accusation. It was not intended as such.

Moses learned the lesson about delegating the hard way (he had to listen to advice from his father-in-law! ).

It is not reasonable to expect that the First Presidency, or the Quorum of the Twelve, nor the various Seventies handle every matter of importance-great-and-small themselves. There are simply too few hours in the day.

It is perfectly reasonable to expect them to farm out some of the work (pun intended) to respected (and inspired) LDS scholars, educators, and counselors to do the roadwork.

Once a basic document is prepared, they can then submit it to the Lord for his approval and then release it to the world at large.

This is consistent with the admonition to ponder these things out in our minds before taking them to the Lord, and with the warning that a servant who must be led in all things is unprophetable (again, pun intended).

[fatherofone]

I took no offense, and I hope that I have given none in return.

I realize (in retrospect) that my attempt to differentiate between ignorance and stupidity could have looked very much like an accusation. It was not intended as such.

thats what I thought you were doing was accusing me of stupidity. In any event, I will let you guys debate I am going to withdraw from the debate and go back to lurking

[katherine the great]

The scripture says what it says. Homosexuality is an abomination worthy of death.

As is the act of cursing one's parents...

[katherine the great]

I have heard that it is acceptable to have 'attraction towards the opposite sex' but not act upon it physically. That the act is what constitutes a sin. I have a hard time with this logic for the simple reason that Masturbation tends to follow the same principle where the fantasy/thoughts or desires are only on on the mind of the individual and not in some prohibited sexual act in physical form. It's as lonely as the so called "attraction" that's not acted upon.

I think you misunderstand what they are saying. Attraction is not equal to fantasy. We can be momentarily attracted a cliff, but when we walk towards it, look down and imagine ourselves jumping off--that is when it becomes dangerous.

[BCSpace]

So now all the Anti Gay preachers can try and bottle us up with the church back east

that excepts gays into there church, And we are not saying they will be able to receive the preisthood

or baptism e.t.c... but we "do" accept they are humam beings and are willing to do Gods real

work to try and show the gay the path as well. Instead of condeming them all to hell as a whole

lot of "christians" do today. I beleive what the l.d.s church is doing, is truely Gods way and not the

self rightgeous biggets that profess to be true "Christians".

Indeed. But the fact remains that homosexuals who express their lifestyle choice into actions cannot hold the priesthood or be baptised. Same as any other fornicator or adulterer (of which homosexual acts are a subset).

[Calm]

I...was simply saying that consulting scholars would sound like something I would expect from other religions, not ours, I would expect ours to inquire of the lord and say that they did is all I was trying to say.

Why not both? The Lord commands us to study and ponder an issue as well as going to him in prayer. Seems to me consulting and discussing this with those educated in the field is a good way of studying and pondering. Why would he provide an answer if someone was capable of, but not serious enough about it to invest time and effort in studying it if that answer was provided already?

D&C 109: 7 And as all have not faith, seek ye diligently and teach one another words of wisdom; yea, seek ye out of the best books words of wisdom, seek learning even by study and also by faith;

[Homestar Runner]

God does indeed love all His children. Many questions, however, including some related to same-gender attractions, must await a future answer, even in the next life. But God has revealed simple, unchanging truths to guide us.

One would infer from these words (located in the 2nd paragraph), that our church leaders are claiming that God isn't answering some questions related to same-gender attractions. One wonders how they would come to that conclusion, unless they had actually asked the questions in the first place.

So, in absence of new revelation on the subject, aren't our church leaders doing the best they can, in that they avail themselves of experts, and use their brains and powers of reason?

What else do you want from them - to make stuff up? If God has said everything He wants to about the subject for right now, it's up to His children to deal with what we've been given.

I don't believe the church takes a hit for consulting experts. I don't think we take a hit for producing something that has not been 100% breathed from God's mouth through His prophet, full of "just saith the Lord"'s and whatnot.

HSR

[Tchild2]

I suggest that you are arguing from ignorance about whether the pamphlet was inspired because as you admit, you don't know. Ignorance, in contrast to stupidity, is a lack of knowledge.

Despite that admitted lack of knowledge, you still condemn the pamphlet as being uninspired.

You don't know the truth of the matter, but you're willing to make derogatory statements which might you might not were you a little less ignorant.

And while scholars were consulted, you have no evidence that those scholars were not themselves inspired, nor that the Church leadership (who are inspired) did not review the matter and submit it for approval.

You simply make a bare-butted assumption and then start condemning people and things.

That is, if I'm not mistaken, a classic example of arguing from ignorance.

The critique Selek is not in the current pamphlet of whether it was "inspired" or not, but the evolution of the church's past pamphlets spanning a mere three decades. The current pamphlet makes huge improvements in accepting those of same sex attraction. Father of One and myself merely note that the evolution of pamphlets seems to be composed by "scholars" and not by inspiration from God. Unless you are agreed that God has changed his mind in three decades as the differing pamphlets attest?

[selek]

The critique Selek is not in the current pamphlet of whether it was "inspired" or not, but the evolution of the church's past pamphlets spanning a mere three decades. The current pamphlet makes huge improvements in accepting those of same sex attraction. Father of One and myself merely note that the evolution of pamphlets seems to be composed by "scholars" and not by inspiration from God. Unless you are agreed that God has changed his mind in three decades as the differing pamphlets attest?

I haven't seen the earliest pamphlets, so I don't know that your inflammatory characterizations are accurate. Given your history on this board, and of the Church, I rather suspect that they are not.

That notwithstanding, you are still arguing from ignorance- you have no evidence whether the past or current pamplets were or are inspired, but you condemn them nonetheless based solely on your assumptions and agenda.

You are still arguing from ignorance- whether it is politically correct ignorance or not.