New Official Pamphlet On "same-sex Attraction"

[California]

Here is the link:

http://www.lds.org/portal/site/LDSOrg/menu...contentLocale=0

[Tchild2]

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.

Go read the pamphlets yourself. As for arguing from ignorance, one can only look at the data. Neither you nor I can tell if someone is "inspired". However, when attitudes change over time (polygamy, race and the priesthood, and now the stance towards homosexuals), I see human minds at work, not God. But then again, since Mormonism has changed thus for so long, you may not be able to perceive what others see so clearly.

[cjcampbell]

Go read the pamphlets yourself. As for arguing from ignorance, one can only look at the data. Neither you nor I can tell if someone is "inspired". However, when attitudes change over time (polygamy, race and the priesthood, and now the stance towards homosexuals), I see human minds at work, not God. But then again, since Mormonism has changed thus for so long, you may not be able to perceive what others see so clearly.

I see God changing what He gives us according to our own ability and willingness to accept what He tells us.

[Tchild2]

I see God changing what He gives us according to our own ability and willingness to accept what He tells us.

So much for "everlasting to everlasting". More like, "God is with the times".

[Joseph Antley]

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

I actually heard that in Aaronic priesthood class once.

[cjcampbell]

So much for "everlasting to everlasting". More like, "God is with the times".

I don't think so. I think it is more a measure of how close to God people are willing to be.

Once God gives you a commandment, you are obligated to obey it or reap the condemnation of God. By the same token, God can only give blessings in response to obedience to commandments. So God does not give commandments to people if those commandments are more likely to harm them than help them.

[selek]

Go read the pamphlets yourself. As for arguing from ignorance, one can only look at the data. Neither you nor I can tell if someone is "inspired". However, when attitudes change over time (polygamy, race and the priesthood, and now the stance towards homosexuals), I see human minds at work, not God. But then again, since Mormonism has changed thus for so long, you may not be able to perceive what others see so clearly.

I've seen and heard quite a bit from both the LDS faithful and from bitter apostates about each of these issues. I've read and studied a fair amount, and I've prayed and sought answers from revelation, from the Scriptures, and from the contemporary writings on the issues.

While you are partially correct that I cannot tell whether someone is inspired at any given moment, I can review the evidence and receive a witness from the Holy Ghost about the works they produce. In that particular measure, the data suggests that the authors and those who reviewed their efforts were inspired.

You'll forgive me if your histrionics don't impress me- you've been wrong far too often to be wholly credible.

The Church's attitude towards polygamy has not changed- it was a matter of necessity, wholly commissioned by God, and appropriate only with that commission. Anything said to the contrary is sophistry.

The Church's attitudes on race reflected the attitudes of the populaces from whence they sprang. As those prejudices have faded, many of the clouds darkening the skies have faded as well. The more particular attitude about race and the Priesthood has also not changed. From its inception, it was expected that the Ban would eventually be lifted- and more importantly- it was sought and prayed for by the membership of the Church. While old prejudices and ignorance have largely ended, the Church's attitude has not changed.

The same general principle applies to the issue of homosexuality- though there are important differences. Old prejudices are beginning to fade- and clouds are beginning to lift. Those who practice homosexuality are sons and daugthers of God, just like everyone else. That is the sum of the similarities.

The differences are quite profound: unlike skin color, homosexual behavior is a choice- one specifically condemned in Scripture. Unlike being a member of a certain race, practicing homosexuality is an action, again one specifically condemned. Unlike being born a member of a certain race or lineage, there is no Scriptural or doctrinal reason to suspect the prohibition on those behaviors and actions will be lifted. Scripture specifically gave hope that the Priesthood Ban would be lifted and our prophets spoke publically about the change long before it came. There is no comparable scriptural evidence or authoritative conversation to indicate that sinful behavior might one day be embraced by God or his chosen.

You accused me of not being able to see the changes- I counter with the suggestion that you might be so jaded and blinded by cynicism and bitterness that you too readily condemn the things of God because of the weaknesses of men. You may be so accustomed to seeing the sinful, cynical hand in your own life that you automatically project it onto others, and begin chasing a chimaera.

[Tchild2]

You'll forgive me if your histrionics don't impress me- you've been wrong far too often to be wholly credible.

I have. Name one objective fact wherein I have erred? I state my opinion based on my experiences as a member and from my transition out of the faith. If stating one's opinion is "wrong" then Selek, you are buried in wrong.

[selek]

I have. Name one objective fact wherein I have erred? I state my opinion based on my experiences as a member and from my transition out of the faith. If stating one's opinion is "wrong" then Selek, you are buried in wrong.

Your continued assertion that the pamphlet is not inspired- an argument from ignorance would be the first in this thread, but there are many others.

And just for clarification- I may be up to my neck, but I'm still breathing- so I'm not quite buried yet.

[Tchild2]

Your continued assertion that the pamphlet is not inspired- an argument from ignorance would be the first in this thread, but there are many others.

And just for clarification- I may be up to my neck, but I'm still breathing- so I'm not quite buried yet.

I have not asserted that at all Selek. I have said that the church's various pamphlets and the attitudes expressed towards same sex attraction have changed in a mere few decades. Such change indicates human endeavors, not God. If you can prove that the writer's of the current pamphlet are "inspired" (which you can't) then you might have a case. Your argument is equally from ignorance...and naive bliss, so we are equally ignorant in our assertions. At least from my perspective, the changes do not indicate divine origins. Just another proof of the evolution of Mormonism and its efforts at "mainstreaming".

[Pahoran]

Go read the pamphlets yourself. As for arguing from ignorance, one can only look at the data. Neither you nor I can tell if someone is "inspired". However, when attitudes change over time (polygamy, race and the priesthood, and now the stance towards homosexuals), I see human minds at work, not God. But then again, since Mormonism has changed thus for so long, you may not be able to perceive what others see so clearly.

Then feel free to enlighten us. It so happens that I have read the material you think documents these amazing changes. So tell us, TKid: what, exactly, has changed? In particular:

• In the old pamphlets, homosexual activity is sinful. In the new pamphlet, it is still sinful. True or false?
  
• In the old pamphlets, sin is not attributed to those who merely feel temptations to homosexual behaviour. In the new pamphlet, it is still not. True or false?
  
• Has the Church's position changed on the sinfulness of entertaining or dwelling upon unclean thoughts of any kind? If so, how?
  

We await your enlightened instruction.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Tchild2]

Then feel free to enlighten us. It so happens that I have read the material you think documents these amazing changes. So tell us, TKid: what, exactly, has changed? In particular:

• In the old pamphlets, homosexual activity is sinful. In the new pamphlet, it is still sinful. True or false?
  
• In the old pamphlets, sin is not attributed to those who merely feel temptations to homosexual behaviour. In the new pamphlet, it is still not. True or false?
  
• Has the Church's position changed on the sinfulness of entertaining or dwelling upon unclean thoughts of any kind? If so, how?
  

We await your enlightened instruction.

Regards,

Pahoran

Sure thing Judge Judy. Homosexuality is "sinful", but so is pride, judgementalism and anger all of which I see every time I read one of your posts.

lets start with a "Letter To A Friend

[Helmuth]

Here's the text of one of the old pamphlets: For Young Men Only (from 1976).

I couldn't find online texts of "A Letter to a Friend" and "To the One". Here is an official First Presidency statement from 1992 called Understanding And Helping Those Who Have Homosexual Problems.

I don't see the doctrine as having changed. The pamphlets and statements all say the same thing: "homosexuality is evil, let's not do it". The new pamphlet may couch it in fluffy PC jargon, because that's the modern lingo, while the old ones dressed it up in 70s terminology. The brethren are just keeping up with the times and stating the doctrine in a way that's going to be understood.

[cjcampbell]

Whether the pamphlet is '70s PC or 21st Century PC, it is basically going to have the same function:

Some missionaries will make sure their greenie companions will see them reading it every night before they go to bed.

[Pahoran]

Sure thing Judge Judy. Homosexuality is "sinful", but so is pride, judgementalism and anger all of which I see every time I read one of your posts.

This is a distraction tactic. Can you show what has changed, or not?

lets start with a "Letter To A Friend

[BCSpace]

I agree, there has been no change whatsoever in the Church stance on homosexuality.

[solomarineris]

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.

Yeah, right. Among other million elements that God chooses to remain silent.

I can count over thousand things which are far mor abhoring than homosexuality;

War, hunger, environmental destruction, etc.

Why should Lord think about punishing a homosexual, who in the first place would not want to be born that way at any cost?

[SolarPowered]

Yeah, right. Among other million elements that God chooses to remain silent.

I can count over thousand things which are far mor abhoring than homosexuality;

War, hunger, environmental destruction, etc.

So, you're saying that the Lord has said nothing about "war, hunger, environmental destruction, etc."? It seems to me that he has said a great deal about the first two.

Why should Lord think about punishing a homosexual, who in the first place would not want to be born that way at any cost?

"Born that way"??? What, they are born with an uncontrollable autonomic reflex to rape members of their own sex? If not, then they have control over their actions, and can reasonably be held accountable for those actions.

[buraianto]

baleted.

[Daniel2]

"Born that way"??? What, they are born with an uncontrollable autonomic reflex to rape members of their own sex? If not, then they have control over their actions, and can reasonably be held accountable for those actions.

The condition of humans' sexual orientations being fixed at birth (or being "Born that way," to put it more succinctly, as SolarPowered stated, here) does NOT mean that humans cannot control their sexual behaviors. Whether we are gay or straight or something else entirely, our individual "sexual orientation" is an expression of our romantic, emotional, spiritual, and sexual attractions towards others. Whether we are gay or straight, our "sexual behaviors" result from decisions to either act in accordance with one's own "sexual orientation," or to fight against it. So, to summarize, all of us, gay or straight, make decisions throughout our lives whether to act in accordance with our inner desires, or against them. Most would agree, however, that we do not consciously "choose" our attractions--such inner attractions are more involunatry responses to external stimuli.

Insofar as the matter of "gender" is concerned, most straight people do not go to the degree of acting completely contrary to their own innate attractions (which, if one is straight, are directed toward members of "the opposite gender"). As previously mentioned, it is true that "choice" plays a role in all of our lives--gay or straight--when it comes to what kinds of sexual behaviors we engage in. However, IMO, "controlling one's sexual behaviors/abstaining from sex in order to wait for the right time/person with which to express them" is not the same as "trying to force one's self to be attracted to or sexually active with a gender that one is not inherently attracted to." Trying to make a meaningful analogy between the two is like comparing apples to oranges.

Of course, I recongize Mormons' (and many Christians') right to believe in (what I consider to be) their mythology that tells them that someday, after we die, "god" will do what doesn't seem to be possible for most (if not all) here on this earth--including, for gay people, "changing their sexual orientations to become attracted to members of the opposite sex." Mormons are free to live their lives based on whatever beliefs they want to--including sacrificing present emotionally fulfilling relationships with the hope that, after one is dead, one will surivive death and hopefully get rewarded with a Mormon-approved heterosexual orientation ("heterosexual" in that phrase is, of course, redundant, but I thought it necessary for clarity). Muslims are similarly free to believe that if they live lives of piety, they will be rewarded with the ability to have relationships with numerous virgins in the hearafter. Many choose to live lives of self-abasement with the hope of future heavenly rewards. Our judgement of whether or not that self-abasement ultimately is rational or logical is a reflection of how much or how little we buy in to the motivating religious beliefs behind the chosen action.

I, personally, don't believe that Mormonism is accurate in it's portayal of what will happen to us after we die, and I am perfectly willing to stake my existence in the here and now on that fact. I believe it makes more sense to claim a chance for happiness through experiencing a joyful, loving relationship, in this life, than to live a life of loneliness, potential misery, and utter self-absement with the hope of a post-death reward that, to me, seems virtually non-existent. Life should be about living.... not waiting to die. And that, ultimately, is what is being asked of gay Latter-day Saints; to just "keep on hoping and praying, most likely till after you die, that the Lord will change your core sexual orientation, and make you 'right.' " The new, official pamphlet makes that clear (only it uses prettier language).

As such, the decisions I make in my life, and the peace I feel concerning those feelings, are a reflection of "how little I buy in to the motivating LDS religious beliefs behind the chosen action" of (in this case) not only living celebate, but cutting myself of from ANY naturally-occuring romantic affection, expression, or interaction throughout the course of my life. I believe that humans are social beings, that the need to love and be loved is inherent to our happiness. Truly, "it is not good for man to be alone." To cut off ourselves from any hope or effort to change our own status of alone-ness in accordance with our natural sense of love and affection is damaging to our well being and can lead to a life of hopeless despair, IMO. I wouldn't ask it of anyone, but understand that Mormonism does. And that's one of many reasons I can't subscribe to Mormonism. I have experienced, for myself, the inherent goodness of truly loving (romantically) another person, and I now know what an uplifting, life-affirming, worthwile experience that is. No amount of religious protestation can change the reality of my experience, first hand. I know of myself, through my own experience, that what I speak of is true.

Anyway.... I just thought I would share these thoughts merely because there seems to be a lot of confusion on how gays feel about the phrase "born that way." It seems that many feel that we feel vindicated to do "whatever we want to do," merely because science is confirming more and more that sexual orientation (read: 'attractions,' not 'behavior') is biologically-determined. While I agree that our sexual orientations (gay AND straight) are biologically-determined, the question that is most worthwhile answering is "WHY should we participate and/or refrain from experiencing a loving, romantic relationship," NOT "whether or not our biology attracts us to a given type of relationship." Though the answer to the latter is interesting, and has potential to change and affect our views on civil rights for gay couples (among many other issues0, the former question is where most value is found, IMO.

As such, I am PERFECTLY willing "to be held accountable for" my decisions to act in accordance with my sexual orientation, just as SolarPowered suggested all of us should be. The merits of my relationship will stand on it's own fruit, and I am more than happy to stand accountable for what I do, as a gay man. As such, I agree, wholeheartedly, with the statement found in this new pamplet which, according to the Deseret Article, states,

True happiness depends on more than the expression of physical urges. These urges diminish as more fundamental emotional needs are met — such as the need to interact with and serve others. True happiness comes from self-control, self-respect and positive direction in life," as well as a "testimony of true doctrine."

Indeed, I am grateful to have finally found the balance of physical urges and actions, emotional needs, interaction with and service towards others, self-control, self-respect, and positive direction in my life, today, as a gay father, son, brother, friend, ex-husband, Unitarian Universalist, and former-Latter-day-Saint.

Thanks for reading, if you made it this far.

Daniel

[USU78]

I am PERFECTLY willing "to be held accountable for" my decisions to act in accordance with my sexual orientation, just as SolarPowered suggested all of us should be.

Does this mean Dan'l does not share the opinion of CLP and so many others, that LDS homophobic savagery is to blame for low self esteem and high mortality rates amongst those who selfidentify as LDS and homosexually inclined?

USU "Has a very low opinion of CLP, in case you hadn't noticed" 78