Why is this in the Gospel Principles manuel?

[zelder]

I grew up in an active Mormon family. None of my friends were gay. I doubt very much that my family environment made me gay. The church and my family did everything they could to recruit me to the heterosexual side. But every since I was 12 years old, I knew I was attracted to guys and had little interest in girls. You might find this blog interesting. It is not scientific, but it is revealing.

Born This Way

There is a difference between engaging in a homosexual act such as what happens in prison and someone who is gay. If you were to ask those men in prison that commit homosexual acts if they were gay, many would say no. You aren't gay because of gay sex acts any more than you are straight by engaging in straight sex acts. I would agree that engaging in gay sex acts could be controlled or manipulated. There is absolutely no scientific proof that you can change what sex you are hardwired to be attracted to. Beleive me I tried. I like many others thought that if I just got married, I could change my orientation. And like so many others, found out that is not how these things work. It is why the church no longer recommends this course of action.

It is an interesting thing you write about and it is true that the pisoners do not consider thenselves gay. I think the prisoners would agree with you that "gay" is not a sex act. I have a hard time with that philosophy though. Maybe its because the church I love is only concerned with the sex acts. My understanding is that we can love anybody and everybody as long as we only have sex with our spouses. Love and sex are not the same thing. However, sex can and should be an expression of love between spouses.

I know some men are effeminate and they are born that way for sure. I'm sure that a lot of effeminate boys were told at a young age that they were gay. If nobody had teased or told them about their sexuality would they have ever wondered about it themselves? Would it be an issue? I don't know.

[Sky]

And fnnally, I have never heard of any acceptions offered by Joseph Smith when he clearly taught that the same wants and desires we have in this life will rise with us in the next. If he offered exceptions, I am unaware of them. Perhaps you could provide a CFR on clarification from Joseph Smith on this doctrine.

Elder Jeffrey Holland , of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, did indicate that homosexuality is a condition that will not be present in the next life:

Helen Whitney: Another anguishing issue that faces you and every church: homosexuality. On a personal level, how do you counsel people dealing with that?

Jeffrey Holland: The emotion and the pain and the challenge of [dealing with homosexuality] has to rank among the most taxing, most visceral of any of the issues that any religious group wrestles with. As others of my colleagues and brethren have, I have counseled hundreds -- I don't know how many hundreds -- of these young people. I say young people because often that's the group that come to us most, but there are people of every age struggling. ... The counsel I have given is that God loves them every bit as much as he loves me; the church loves them. We do have doctrine; we do have borders; we do have foundational pieces on which we stand. And moral chastity -- heterosexual ... and homosexual -- are areas where God has spoken and where the church has a position...

I spoke earlier about the price everyone has to pay for the blessing of the covenant, to be counted within the institutional circle of the blessings of the church. ... I have spent a significant portion of the last few years of my ministry pleading to give help to those who don't practice [homosexuality] but who are struggling with the impressions and the feelings and the attractions and the gender confusion. Or if they do practice or are trying to deal with it, that group I have spent scores of hours with, if nothing else, just saying: "Hang on, hope on, try on. ... Get through the night; get to the light.

[Hamba Tuhan]

Just curious, but would you consider yourself irrevocably heterosexual?

Short answer: No.

The concept of sexual orientation as an innate and therefore immutable part of identity is a historical artefact and thus has a traceable genealogy--in this case, to the nineteenth century. Until recently, it was almost exclusively found in the West.

My 'sexual orientation' is a psycho-social construct which, because I have agency, has received 'final' approval by me, but, like all other aspects of human nature, is inherently fluid and contains the potential for alteration by an interplay of both external and internal factors.

[california boy]

It is an interesting thing you write about and it is true that the pisoners do not consider thenselves gay. I think the prisoners would agree with you that "gay" is not a sex act. I have a hard time with that philosophy though. Maybe its because the church I love is only concerned with the sex acts. My understanding is that we can love anybody and everybody as long as we only have sex with our spouses. Love and sex are not the same thing. However, sex can and should be an expression of love between spouses.

I know some men are effeminate and they are born that way for sure. I'm sure that a lot of effeminate boys were told at a young age that they were gay. If nobody had teased or told them about their sexuality would they have ever wondered about it themselves? Would it be an issue? I don't know.

I know that the church puts a lot of emphasis on the sex act itself. But it is not about gay sex that makes one gay. I would venture to say that most women who love their husbands would still be attracted to them even if they could never have sex with them. Like you said, the sex only enhanses and strengthens the love they have for each other. It isn't the basis or reason for the attraction. It is no different for someone who is gay. It is not the sex that attracts them to men. The only difference is gay men can not marry who they love. But the sex still binds them closer together. Having gay sex does not make you gay. Having straight sex does not make you straight. People go their whole lives without ever having sex with another person, but they know whether they are straight or gay.

Many people think that gay men are effeminate. Yes there are some, but for the most part, gay men are not effeminate. It is just that straight people don't notice if you are gay unless you are the ones that are effeminate. If you were to meet me, you would have no idea I was gay by the way I act. I remember when I told my father that I was gay, he said that I couldn't be because I didn't act gay. lol

Growing up, I knew how to make other people think I was straight. i had girlfriends and hid the fact that I was gay very well. No one suspected. It is a a gay man's biggest fear when I was growing up. Someone will find out. No one ever teased me. My best friend was not gay. No one knew but me. I knew I was gay since I was 12 years old. Nothing ever changed. Outward appearence does not indicate your sexual orientation. Teasing does not make you gay.Having gay sex does not make you gay. Marrying a woman does not make you straight.

[Stargazer]

I grew up in an active Mormon family. None of my friends were gay. I doubt very much that my family environment made me gay. The church and my family did everything they could to recruit me to the heterosexual side. But every since I was 12 years old, I knew I was attracted to guys and had little interest in girls. You might find this blog interesting. It is not scientific, but it is revealing.

Born This Way

There is a difference between engaging in a homosexual act such as what happens in prison and someone who is gay. If you were to ask those men in prison that commit homosexual acts if they were gay, many would say no. You aren't gay because of gay sex acts any more than you are straight by engaging in straight sex acts. I would agree that engaging in gay sex acts could be controlled or manipulated. There is absolutely no scientific proof that you can change what sex you are hardwired to be attracted to. Beleive me I tried. I like many others thought that if I just got married, I could change my orientation. And like so many others, found out that is not how these things work. It is why the church no longer recommends this course of action.

Of course, I'm going to be in trouble with someone over what I am about to write, but I must write it.

I will not argue with you about whether you are actually hardwired or not, because I am not you and cannot walk in those particular mocassins. So I must believe you when you say that you may be hardwired to be attracted to guys and not gals.

This does not necessarily mean, however, that that hardwiring will persist after death, and especially it will not mean it will persist in your resurrected body. That which Joseph is cited as having said appears only to pertain to habits of the body that are necessarily taken on by the spirit as a kind of temporary imprint -- such that the desire to smoke may temporarily survive into the Spirit World, and be therefore unrequitable (and thus a trial in itself). But it cannot be permanent, or else the resurrection means nothing. Does a man born without arms find himself still without arms in the Spirit World after his death? Of course not, because he's no longer in the body. But could he be at least temporarily and spiritually hindered in his "movement" as he perceives it until he grows out of his limitations in spirit? Seems possible, at least.

By the same token, I presume that after death you may retain your orientation temporarily as a vestige of the life and habits you leave behind. But how can it be retained forever, if that was not its original spiritual condition? And with a perfect body in the resurrection, what makes anyone think that the SSA will remain?

Consider a man born without legs. Does this mean his spirit was legless as well, or is his present physical configuration the result of mischance or accident in the process of fetal growth? Seems that it would be the latter. Consider a man born with Attention Deficit Disorder, such as I. Did the ADD afflict my spirit in the pre-existence? Hardly. But some configuration of either heredity (through mutation) or mischance or accident in fetal growth led to it being particularly hard for me to focus on tasks (like right now, instead of working on my Windows Phone 7 app that I am supposed to get finished this week I am taking precious time and crafting this missive, which will likely be unappreciated anyway). All three of us, that legless man, me, and you landed in mortality with various crosses to bear, and while some are perhaps harder to bear than others, I am certain that if we endure our afflictions well, we will triumph in the end. We may well be given more credit for being average than many a better-advantaged man who does merely excellently. Who knows? And so I struggle to maintain concentration, the legless man races his wheelchair in the Paralympics, and you, CB, do all what you can do in the battle, whatever it is you do.

As to one being "born that way," while some of those struggling with SSA may indeed be born that way (and I've heard that there are some few who have chosen it), I do not believe that God made you that way, per se, any more than He made that legless man that way, but He surely knew it would happen as a consequence of the imperfections of this earthly estate.

And His daily question to each one of us is: "What will you choose today?"

He has given every person born into this earth a stewardship (in the form of varying amounts of free will and a fixed amount of time to exercise it) and expects all of us to do our best with it. Some of us will be good stewards, and others will be less so. And those who have abided in their stewardship, and increased it, will be "added upon."

[california boy]

Elder Jeffrey Holland , of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, did indicate that homosexuality is a condition that will not be present in the next life:

I am aware of some statements by church leaders including Jeffrey Holland's statement that talk about this issue, but it is not church doctrine. There is no revelation on this. And it is counter to Joseph Smiths statement. If we learn anything from reading this board, it is that prophets and apostles can have their own opinions, but it is not necessarliy Gods.

That said, I do know that God loves me. I feel his love. I know that he wants me to have love in this life as well as the next. And that is enought for me.

[california boy]

Of course, I'm going to be in trouble with someone over what I am about to write, but I must write it.

I will not argue with you about whether you are actually hardwired or not, because I am not you and cannot walk in those particular mocassins. So I must believe you when you say that you may be hardwired to be attracted to guys and not gals.

This does not necessarily mean, however, that that hardwiring will persist after death, and especially it will not mean it will persist in your resurrected body. That which Joseph is cited as having said appears only to pertain to habits of the body that are necessarily taken on by the spirit as a kind of temporary imprint -- such that the desire to smoke may temporarily survive into the Spirit World, and be therefore unrequitable (and thus a trial in itself). But it cannot be permanent, or else the resurrection means nothing. Does a man born without arms find himself still without arms in the Spirit World after his death? Of course not, because he's no longer in the body. But could he be at least temporarily and spiritually hindered in his "movement" as he perceives it until he grows out of his limitations in spirit? Seems possible, at least.

By the same token, I presume that after death you may retain your orientation temporarily as a vestige of the life and habits you leave behind. But how can it be retained forever, if that was not its original spiritual condition? And with a perfect body in the resurrection, what makes anyone think that the SSA will remain?

Consider a man born without legs. Does this mean his spirit was legless as well, or is his present physical configuration the result of mischance or accident in the process of fetal growth? Seems that it would be the latter. Consider a man born with Attention Deficit Disorder, such as I. Did the ADD afflict my spirit in the pre-existence? Hardly. But some configuration of either heredity (through mutation) or mischance or accident in fetal growth led to it being particularly hard for me to focus on tasks (like right now, instead of working on my Windows Phone 7 app that I am supposed to get finished this week I am taking precious time and crafting this missive, which will likely be unappreciated anyway). All three of us, that legless man, me, and you landed in mortality with various crosses to bear, and while some are perhaps harder to bear than others, I am certain that if we endure our afflictions well, we will triumph in the end. We may well be given more credit for being average than many a better-advantaged man who does merely excellently. Who knows? And so I struggle to maintain concentration, the legless man races his wheelchair in the Paralympics, and you, CB, do all what you can do in the battle, whatever it is you do.

As to one being "born that way," while some of those struggling with SSA may indeed be born that way (and I've heard that there are some few who have chosen it), I do not believe that God made you that way, per se, any more than He made that legless man that way, but He surely knew it would happen as a consequence of the imperfections of this earthly estate.

And His daily question to each one of us is: "What will you choose today?"

He has given every person born into this earth a stewardship (in the form of varying amounts of free will and a fixed amount of time to exercise it) and expects all of us to do our best with it. Some of us will be good stewards, and others will be less so. And those who have abided in their stewardship, and increased it, will be "added upon."

I really appreciate the time you spent both thinking about this issue and in writing your ideas down. And like you, I also wonder if what I write helps open up others minds and even my own. Maybe all that you are guessing at is true. Maybe there will be a magical wand that can touch me when I die and I will all the sudden be heterosexual. I don't know and neither do you. If it is true, then like the man with no arms, it is pointless to try and grow arms in this life. I will just wait for the magic wand in the next life. What do I have to loose? My eternal opportunity to be married for eternity to a woman? I can understand a man born without arms wanting them in the next life. I can't understand a gay man wanting a wife for eternity in the next life. I don't have any idea what that would be like or why I would want it. Unlike the guy without arms who misses them, I don't miss women. I don't look forward to being with one in the eternities.

I hated being gay for so long. And after all these yesrs, I have learned to be at peace with being gay. .Where you find peace and happiness in being married to a woman and having children, I fnd peace and happiness in being with a man, having a life together, and hopefully being able to marry some day. I have other things to concentrate my energies on in this life like charity, humility, kindness to others, loveing everyone unconditionally feeding those that are in prison whether physicall or emotionally. I got a lot to keep me busy in this life without worrying about being gay. Yeah it is that simple.

[Stargazer]

I really appreciate the time you spent both thinking about this issue and in writing your ideas down. And like you, I also wonder if what I write helps open up others minds and even my own. Maybe all that you are guessing at is true. Maybe there will be a magical wand that can touch me when I die and I will all the sudden be heterosexual. I don't know and neither do you. If it is true, then like the man with no arms, it is pointless to try and grow arms in this life. I will just wait for the magic wand in the next life. What do I have to loose? My eternal opportunity to be married for eternity to a woman? I can understand a man born without arms wanting them in the next life. I can't understand a gay man wanting a wife for eternity in the next life. I don't have any idea what that would be like or why I would want it. Unlike the guy without arms who misses them, I don't miss women. I don't look forward to being with one in the eternities.

I hated being gay for so long. And after all these yesrs, I have learned to be at peace with being gay. .Where you find peace and happiness in being married to a woman and having children, I fnd peace and happiness in being with a man, having a life together, and hopefully being able to marry some day. I have other things to concentrate my energies on in this life like charity, humility, kindness to others, loveing everyone unconditionally feeding those that are in prison whether physicall or emotionally. I got a lot to keep me busy in this life without worrying about being gay. Yeah it is that simple.

Well, then I wish you the best of whatever it is ultimately becomes yours.

I rather expect that when I die I will no longer be heterosexual, nor you homosexual. Perhaps you cannot imagine wanting to be married to a woman, but in that moment that our physicality is no longer a part of us, will what possessed us at death as physicality matter at all? My wife is my dearest friend out of all, and sexualtiy has come to matter much less over the years -- though still a component of course -- and in that interval between death and resurrection we will still be as dear to one another as before, with no sexual componet at all, but with a promise of eternal increase in the resurrection if we have remained faithful to one another and our Lord and Savior. I fear that with respect to you and yours that part of that may indeed be your lot, but not all, and in the end your blessings fall far short of what you might have been capable of -- yet God knows your situation, the desires of your heart, and all that you had to face in life, and so I will not dare to make any predictions.

But if the scriptures and modern revelation are any guide at all, I'm reasonably certain that eternal homosexual marriage is not one of those things on offer.

[Brade]

Remember that when things are spoekn of in the chruch they are talking about the rules not expetion to rules. In general homosxual activity is a destrcitve life style. Are there expetions? yes. But suicide rates are higher in the gay community and the amount of partners a gay persons has is stagering.

I just want to make sure I'm clear on what you are or are not trying to imply. Are you trying to suggest that the fact of higher suicide rates among homosexuals is, in a way, directly because of homosexual activity itself? If you are suggesting that, I'd like to know how you draw that conclusion. Is there research that suggests that it's merely homosexual activity that causes self-destruction? If so, how has that research ruled out the possibility that homosexual suicide is caused not by merely engaging in homosexual acts but, rather, by the social stresses of being homosexual?

[LeSellers]

If so, how has that research ruled out the possibility that homosexual suicide is caused not by merely engaging in homosexual acts but, rather, by the social stresses of being homosexual?

I don't know if there's any "research" (research is so often funded by government and others who would not like that conclusion and would not, therefore, pay for it), but I have seen some statistics showing that places like San Francisco (where there are no "social stresses of being homosexual"), suicide rates are just as high as among other homosexuals and even higher. I believe it was USU'78 who first brought this to my attention a year or more ago, but I have seen it elsewhere since then.

Furthermore, one could ask if purposefully engaging in behavior known to be inherently dangerous, that will inevitably result in early death, and taking no precautions to prevent that death is "suicide" (rather than merely "suicidal"). We call one such act "suicide by cop" and another "suicide by semi". Would intentional disregard for fatal disease transmission that runs many times higher for some homosexual acts than for normal sexual activity, finding extra exhilaration in daring to get AIDS, be "suicide" when the "victim" does get AIDS? I believe it is, but that's one well read man's opinion. If so, then at least some homosexual activity is suicide, it does not just "lead to suicide".

Lehi

[Questing Beast]

I am aware of some statements by church leaders including Jeffrey Holland's statement that talk about this issue, but it is not church doctrine. There is no revelation on this. And it is counter to Joseph Smiths statement. If we learn anything from reading this board, it is that prophets and apostles can have their own opinions, but it is not necessarliy Gods.

That said, I do know that God loves me. I feel his love. I know that he wants me to have love in this life as well as the next. And that is enought for me.

We are indeed a "honey bunch of stink weeds". What we individually feel we judge the whole world by, until we learn that this is wrong. Then we spend the rest of our lives unlearning what we have felt about everybody else, because we FEEL it. Feelings impact thinking and that is the trap. Too many people are utterly unaware that most of their opinions are actually emotional reactions and therefore subjective and not objective. No area more than sexual identification bears this "stamp" of human prejudice.

We have such a long, long way to go, before society discontinues its angst over other people's sexuality: thousands of years of that angst have inbred such a genetic memory of "right and wrong" that I can hardly imagine what a society would be like, really like, to simply not care AT ALL what other people do sexually. We don't really care how others eat, or exercise, or think and feel; that's up to them individually. Yet we REALLY get bothered by sex. Why is that? Because RELIGION has so much to say about it; asserting all manner of metaphysical importance to a simple biological function; EVEN WHEN NO PROCREATION IS INVOLVED. I don't get this: the very act of sexual stimulation, one of life's three most natural pleasures (the other two being eating and sleeping), is somehow co-opted by religion into some forbidden act, if it is not all and only about making babies. Yet infertile husbands and wives are not compelled to divorce, or cease forthwith to engage in sexual intercourse. Where's the logic in that? If religion was being completely consistent, it would apply equal proscription to everybody: "sex is only for procreation" would mean intense scrutiny into married couples' lives to assure that they are not having sex once the issue of having children is over and done with. But instead, we hear, "sex is a form of expression of love in a relationship". Well, it can be. It can also be nothing more than simple pleasure; it can be shared; it can be solitary. Eating is pleasurable alone. I have not heard that eating together makes the actual eating anymore enjoyable: but being with a loved one is more enhancing of any activity than being alone (usually, but not always). Why this particular (undue) focus on sex then?

I believe that an enlightened society does not concern itself with the individuals in its midst; only when a "fire" flares up, does society move to put it out. That's why "we" are concerned about protecting helpless children and women from predacious men. But our interest and concern should not extend further than that. What any two consenting adults decide that they like to do together should not be of any concern to society if no injustice attends said-proclivities and the subsequent activities.

As I said, "we" have a long, long way to go....

[california boy]

I don't know if there's any "research" (research is so often funded by government and others who would not like that conclusion and would not, therefore, pay for it), but I have seen some statistics showing that places like San Francisco (where there are no "social stresses of being homosexual"), suicide rates are just as high as among other homosexuals and even higher. I believe it was USU'78 who first brought this to my attention a year or more ago, but I have seen it elsewhere since then.

Furthermore, one could ask if purposefully engaging in behavior known to be inherently dangerous, that will inevitably result in early death, and taking no precautions to prevent that death is "suicide" (rather than merely "suicidal"). We call one such act "suicide by cop" and another "suicide by semi". Would intentional disregard for fatal disease transmission that runs many times higher for some homosexual acts than for normal sexual activity, finding extra exhilaration in daring to get AIDS, be "suicide" when the "victim" does get AIDS? I believe it is, but that's one well read man's opinion. If so, then at least some homosexual activity is suicide, it does not just "lead to suicide".

Lehi

I happen to live in San Francisco. I have lived here all my life. To say that the Bay Area has no social stress against homosexuality is just a very naive statement. Kids are still teased, sometimes bullied and growing up in a very religious family being gay no matter where you live is certainly not easy. A very high profile suicide in Palo Alto on the church lawn certainly emphasises this point. Just because parts of San Francisco is gay friendly doesn't mean there is no hatred, bigotry or religious zeal against homosexuality. Do you think it is much easier to be a faithful Mormon just because you happen to live in Utah rather than Caiifornia? Your supposition could only be presented by someone who is not gay and does not live in San Francisco. It is just flawed.

As far as your less than brilliant idea that gay men want to commit suicide by getting AIDS is just as unfounded, unless you also believe that those who smoke want to commit suicide. Or those who don't use sunscreen want to commit suicide. Or those who over eat want to commit suicide.

[Jason]

What is the point of your post Jason?

To point out that you have created a strawman. I understand that you are emotional on the subject, but I must point out falsehood when I see it.

To tell me I am not gay and I will want to marry a woman for eternity??

You are not gay - no one is. You may very well engage in homosexual acts and have homosexual desires. There is a difference between the two, however.

Yes, you will not have the same desires you do now in eternity, and if you never marry a woman you will not reach the highest level of the Celestial Kingdom. This life is transitory, and many things that seem very important to us now; indeed, things that seem vital to our very being, will be revealed as nothing of the sort after this life.

That you know what counsel I have been given by my bishop, stake president as well as counsel from general authorities?

I know that you are misrepresenting the current position of the Church as a general forbiddance of marriage or dating for any who suffer from same sex attraction. That is not the position of the Church.

Are you completely unaware that the church's position is that they don't know whether someone is born gay?

The Church's official position is indeed that they don't know the ultimate source for homosexual desires. The Church also maintains, however, that no one is forced, whatever the cause of their desires, to engage in homosexual activity. No one is "gay" in the sense that they have an unalterable physical desire that must be gratified for them to remain healthy. Granted, it may not be possible to completely overcome such sinful desires in this life, but just because it is a sexual wrongful desire does not make it excusable when compared to the crosses others must bare.

While some men may marry and have a family, clearly not all can. I am one of those guys.

And for a long time I thought I would be one of those guys too. Not because of my desires, but because I couldn't find someone to marry me. My wife knows many women who will not be able to marry and have a family in this life. It has nothing to do with their sexual desires, but can you truthfully say that their pain is any less than yours?

To think you can counsel me to do something that is contrary to the counsel I recieved from those who know me best is just insulting to those church leaders.

Have I counseled you to take any specific action?

And fnnally, I have never heard of any acceptions offered by Joseph Smith when he clearly taught that the same wants and desires we have in this life will rise with us in the next. If he offered exceptions, I am unaware of them. Perhaps you could provide a CFR on clarification from Joseph Smith on this doctrine.

It's "exceptions", not "acceptions." I merely said that this comment by Joseph was not specifically addressed to homosexuality, and I stand by that. To take this quote as a pronounciation of your doom is to twist it from its intent.

[california boy]

We are indeed a "honey bunch of stink weeds". What we individually feel we judge the whole world by, until we learn that this is wrong. Then we spend the rest of our lives unlearning what we have felt about everybody else, because we FEEL it. Feelings impact thinking and that is the trap. Too many people are utterly unaware that most of their opinions are actually emotional reactions and therefore subjective and not objective. No area more than sexual identification bears this "stamp" of human prejudice.

We have such a long, long way to go, before society discontinues its angst over other people's sexuality: thousands of years of that angst have inbred such a genetic memory of "right and wrong" that I can hardly imagine what a society would be like, really like, to simply not care AT ALL what other people do sexually. We don't really care how others eat, or exercise, or think and feel; that's up to them individually. Yet we REALLY get bothered by sex. Why is that? Because RELIGION has so much to say about it; asserting all manner of metaphysical importance to a simple biological function; EVEN WHEN NO PROCREATION IS INVOLVED. I don't get this: the very act of sexual stimulation, one of life's three most natural pleasures (the other two being eating and sleeping), is somehow co-opted by religion into some forbidden act, if it is not all and only about making babies. Yet infertile husbands and wives are not compelled to divorce, or cease forthwith to engage in sexual intercourse. Where's the logic in that? If religion was being completely consistent, it would apply equal proscription to everybody: "sex is only for procreation" would mean intense scrutiny into married couples' lives to assure that they are not having sex once the issue of having children is over and done with. But instead, we hear, "sex is a form of expression of love in a relationship". Well, it can be. It can also be nothing more than simple pleasure; it can be shared; it can be solitary. Eating is pleasurable alone. I have not heard that eating together makes the actual eating anymore enjoyable: but being with a loved one is more enhancing of any activity than being alone (usually, but not always). Why this particular (undue) focus on sex then?

I believe that an enlightened society does not concern itself with the individuals in its midst; only when a "fire" flares up, does society move to put it out. That's why "we" are concerned about protecting helpless children and women from predacious men. But our interest and concern should not extend further than that. What any two consenting adults decide that they like to do together should not be of any concern to society if no injustice attends said-proclivities and the subsequent activities.

As I said, "we" have a long, long way to go....

A very thoughtful post that I doubt you will get much of a response to. When I study the words of Christ, one of the main messages to us seems to be the whole concept of not judging others no matter what they have done. That doesn't mean we should not use good judgement. It just means we shouldn't be so concerned about what others are doing or not doing. It was one of His biggest criticisms He had against the church during his time.

It seems like our job is to love others not to prevent others from being loved. The idea that legislation on who should and should not be married just seems foreign to the words of Christ. But hey, it is just how I view Christ's message. I am sure others would disagree.

[california boy]

To point out that you have created a strawman. I understand that you are emotional on the subject, but I must point out falsehood when I see it.

You are not gay - no one is. You may very well engage in homosexual acts and have homosexual desires. There is a difference between the two, however.

Yes, you will not have the same desires you do now in eternity, and if you never marry a woman you will not reach the highest level of the Celestial Kingdom. This life is transitory, and many things that seem very important to us now; indeed, things that seem vital to our very being, will be revealed as nothing of the sort after this life.

I know that you are misrepresenting the current position of the Church as a general forbiddance of marriage or dating for any who suffer from same sex attraction. That is not the position of the Church.

The Church's official position is indeed that they don't know the ultimate source for homosexual desires. The Church also maintains, however, that no one is forced, whatever the cause of their desires, to engage in homosexual activity. No one is "gay" in the sense that they have an unalterable physical desire that must be gratified for them to remain healthy. Granted, it may not be possible to completely overcome such sinful desires in this life, but just because it is a sexual wrongful desire does not make it excusable when compared to the crosses others must bare.

And for a long time I thought I would be one of those guys too. Not because of my desires, but because I couldn't find someone to marry me. My wife knows many women who will not be able to marry and have a family in this life. It has nothing to do with their sexual desires, but can you truthfully say that their pain is any less than yours?

Have I counseled you to take any specific action?

It's "exceptions", not "acceptions." I merely said that this comment by Joseph was not specifically addressed to homosexuality, and I stand by that. To take this quote as a pronounciation of your doom is to twist it from its intent.

I can't really respond to someone who somehow knows that I am not gay. Or to someone who doesn't think anyone is gay. Nor someone who seems to know how my own bishop and stake president counseled me. You seem to know more about my life than I do. So I will let you run with it.

[TAO]

hmm....

California boy... haven't you ever thought that perhaps... perhaps inclinations towards any particular gender aren't a good enough reason for matrimony in God's eyes?

I mean, I guess it's my particular opinion... and perhaps it's only for me alone, instruction wise... but yes... perhaps it is more than that, I think?

Perhaps, matrimony, has to do with much more than inclination?

I know what God expects of me for it, and he rather expects me to abandon any even slightly lustful thoughts altogether and explicitly.

But I don't know what he expects of you, but perhaps you should look into it.

[Jason]

I can't really respond to someone who somehow knows that I am not gay. Or to someone who doesn't think anyone is gay. Nor someone who seems to know how my own bishop and stake president counseled me. You seem to know more about my life than I do. So I will let you run with it.

Fine. Please come back when you do know what to say.

I don't know you personally, but I do know that no one in this life is forced to sin by something they have no control over, like their genes.

[california boy]

hmm....

California boy... haven't you ever thought that perhaps... perhaps inclinations towards any particular gender aren't a good enough reason for matrimony in God's eyes?

I mean, I guess it's my particular opinion... and perhaps it's only for me alone, instruction wise... but yes... perhaps it is more than that, I think?

Perhaps, matrimony, has to do with much more than inclination?

I know what God expects of me for it, and he rather expects me to abandon any even slightly lustful thoughts altogether and explicitly.

But I don't know what he expects of you, but perhaps you should look into it.

I guess we all struggle to know what God wants each of us to do individually. And gay marriage seems to be a flashing point for many in this country. So there is a secular discussion about this issue which should not include religion and what God wants in that discussion in my opinion. It is just how I see the framework of this country was set up.

As far as a religious discussion about gay marriage, things are not as crystal clear as some members want to believe. What is crystal clear is that God does not want sex outside of marriage. He is particularly against adultery, giving it one of the top 10 spots. Sex within marriage seems to be the proper thing to do.

I think everyone would agree that there was no gay marriage during biblical times. So we don't know what God's stance on that would be. He only condemns man lying with man in the exact way that He condemns adultery and fornication.

The prophet has made it quite clear what he THINKS God's stance is on gay marriage. But as far as I know, there has been no direct revelation on this subject. And that seems to get a little more tricky. Certainly there have been countless times in Mormon history where the prophet THINKS he knows the will of God only to find out that was not the case at all. Is all you have to do is read this form often enough and you know what I mean by that statement.

Certainly the attitudes on homosexuality have evolved quite a bit from the statements of President Kimball. I feel the church will continue to ponder this matter. In direct answer to your question, perhaps inclinations towards any particular gender may or may not be a good enough reason for matrimony in God's eyes? I don't pretend to know and I don't think anyone else really knows. But I do know that God is big on honesty and love and it is not good for man to be alone. So I go with that. I know it is a different path than many choose.

[Eitan]

I can't really respond to someone who somehow knows that I am not gay. Or to someone who doesn't think anyone is gay. Nor someone who seems to know how my own bishop and stake president counseled me. You seem to know more about my life than I do. So I will let you run with it.

california boy,

Reading through this thread, I have to commend you on your patience and the valiant effort to share your experiences with the posters here. But as you mention, how can you properly address someone who "knows" you're not gay and denies that anyone is? --- that your lived experience is not valid and that you are not interpreting it correctly. Its my observation that this is a profound form of disrespect and I would consider not responding further to this kind of treatment. You, of course, are a grown up and can take care of yourself. LDS culture and thinking is evolving on this issue, as you say, but I still think a Mormon environment is a psychologically unhealthy one for gay people. It sounds like you've distanced yourself from the Church and I think that's a very good thing.

In my view, the way you treat your fellow man is the whole enchilada. If the evidence in these posts is any indication, you're doing just fine.

[Jason]

As far as a religious discussion about gay marriage, things are not as crystal clear as some members want to believe.

That seems to be wishful thinking on your part.

The prophet has made it quite clear what he THINKS God's stance is on gay marriage. But as far as I know, there has been no direct revelation on this subject.

The absence of a "thus saith the Lord" printed revelation doesn't mean there has been no revelation on the subject.

Certainly the attitudes on homosexuality have evolved quite a bit from the statements of President Kimball.

Not really. Homosexual activity has always been condemned and always will be. All that has changed is that the Church has made it more clear that we are not to hate the sinner on this particular issue.

[california boy]

That seems to be wishful thinking on your part.

The absence of a "thus saith the Lord" printed revelation doesn't mean there has been no revelation on the subject.

Not really. Homosexual activity has always been condemned and always will be. All that has changed is that the Church has made it more clear that we are not to hate the sinner on this particular issue.

Are you saying that there has definitely been a revelation on this subject? Can you give me a CFR on that revelation?

[Jason]

Are you saying that there has definitely been a revelation on this subject? Can you give me a CFR on that revelation?

I just told you there is no "thus saith the Lord" printed revelation. Rather it's of the same nature as the Church's position on cocaine. There is no "thus saith the Lord" revelation that says "thou shalt not snort cocaine". It's not mentioned in Section 89. Yet I would say that all the statements of the GAs on not taking cocaine are in fact based on revelation, and you will be justly denied a temple recommend and possibly face further Church discipline if you are an unrepentent cocaine addict.

Look in the Church's printed materials and you will see quite clear doctrine on the subject. These materials were prepared with the aid of revelation.

[TAO]

I guess we all struggle to know what God wants each of us to do individually. And gay marriage seems to be a flashing point for many in this country. So there is a secular discussion about this issue which should not include religion and what God wants in that discussion in my opinion. It is just how I see the framework of this country was set up.

But I do see it as concerning religion and what God wants. That's one more border between a real mairrage, and a temple mairrage. One more border that has to be crossed for those who seek it, and a difficult border indeed, for those who struggle.

As far as a religious discussion about gay marriage, things are not as crystal clear as some members want to believe. What is crystal clear is that God does not want sex outside of marriage. He is particularly against adultery, giving it one of the top 10 spots. Sex within marriage seems to be the proper thing to do.

I do remember Timothy talking about in the last days, people will have 'unnatural affection'... I'm pretty sure reading through that God does not like homosexual activities. He loves his children, but he wishes they wouldn't do that, as it will destroy their happiness later.

I think everyone would agree that there was no gay marriage during biblical times. So we don't know what God's stance on that would be. He only condemns man lying with man in the exact way that He condemns adultery and fornication.

He deeply condemns those though. You remember what Alma said about sexual sins... that they are the worst save murder and denying the Holy Ghost.

The prophet has made it quite clear what he THINKS God's stance is on gay marriage. But as far as I know, there has been no direct revelation on this subject. And that seems to get a little more tricky. Certainly there have been countless times in Mormon history where the prophet THINKS he knows the will of God only to find out that was not the case at all. Is all you have to do is read this form often enough and you know what I mean by that statement.

Concerning such an important issue, I am sure the prophet and the apostles have received some form of revelation upon the subject, and how the Lord wishes it at this time. Furthermore, I rather trust President Monson here, he is a prophet I am rather close to, and enjoy hearing speak, for I know he speaks for the Lord.

Also, I think I may understand the reasons the Lord disagrees with homosexuality, and so it fits into my thought bubble as well.

Certainly the attitudes on homosexuality have evolved quite a bit from the statements of President Kimball.

Which statements do you speak of?

In direct answer to your question, perhaps inclinations towards any particular gender may or may not be a good enough reason for matrimony in God's eyes? I don't pretend to know and I don't think anyone else really knows. But I do know that God is big on honesty and love and it is not good for man to be alone. So I go with that. I know it is a different path than many choose.

Why don't you ask him then, if you don't know?

I'm pretty sure he'd want you to ask him.

Best Wishes,

TAO

[california boy]

But I do see it as concerning religion and what God wants. That's one more border between a real mairrage, and a temple mairrage. One more border that has to be crossed for those who seek it, and a difficult border indeed, for those who struggle.

I do remember Timothy talking about in the last days, people will have 'unnatural affection'... I'm pretty sure reading through that God does not like homosexual activities. He loves his children, but he wishes they wouldn't do that, as it will destroy their happiness later.

He deeply condemns those though. You remember what Alma said about sexual sins... that they are the worst save murder and denying the Holy Ghost.

Concerning such an important issue, I am sure the prophet and the apostles have received some form of revelation upon the subject, and how the Lord wishes it at this time. Furthermore, I rather trust President Monson here, he is a prophet I am rather close to, and enjoy hearing speak, for I know he speaks for the Lord.

Also, I think I may understand the reasons the Lord disagrees with homosexuality, and so it fits into my thought bubble as well.

Which statements do you speak of?

Why don't you ask him then, if you don't know?

I'm pretty sure he'd want you to ask him.

Best Wishes,

TAO

TAO, thanks for your response. I am sure you wrote it in hopes that it would help me somehow. I guess knowing that you take the time to answer some of my statements shows caring. And I get that things are pretty clear in your mind. For me, not so much.

Natural affection could mean any relationship outside of marriage. Certainly an adultress affair is not natural to the laws of God. And like I said, Alma is condemning any sex outside of marriage. I don't disagree that God seems to be pretty clear about sex outside of marriage.

Now concerning your knowledge about what God has said to his prophets and what he hasn't, The statements that I am referring to are statements that are talked about all the time on this form. This discussion is an example of that.

common Points That Apologists Make

Now about asking God. I can not even count the number of times I have fasted prayed, then fasted again about this subject. I have prayed about this for literally decades. I don't expect you to know my heart. But to say that maybe I should pray about this and somehow there will be an answer is the promise that many gay Mormons have found elusive. For me now, I still feel His spirit. I feel his love. I feel God knows me and cares about me. It is the best answer I have ever gotten from my prayers. A peace in my heart that everything will be alright is all I need to know. It is the answer He has given me.

[TAO]

TAO, thanks for your response. I am sure you wrote it in hopes that it would help me somehow.

I guess somewhat. I was pretty sure it wasn't going to change your opinion or anything, but I thought, hey, it's at least the thought that counts =). And it develops good relationships between people, so that's always a plus =D.

I guess knowing that you take the time to answer some of my statements shows caring. And I get that things are pretty clear in your mind. For me, not so much.

I understand. =).

Natural affection could mean any relationship outside of marriage. Certainly an adultress affair is not natural to the laws of God. And like I said, Alma is condemning any sex outside of marriage. I don't disagree that God seems to be pretty clear about sex outside of marriage.

Nah, in the Timothy verse, he is saying 'un-natural affection' is bad XD. Which at times, I have thought is really wierd, considering how the word 'natural' is used in the opposite direction by Nephi in 'putteth off the natural man' and such... but I guess that's just how each chose to write it. But I think 'unnatural affection' is specifically referring to is homosexuality (bleh, I wish they had a nicer word for it than that, homosexuality sounds so long and formal, gay sounds not serious enough) because God didn't make man to be with man... actually, there's a more explicit verse... let me see if I can grab it... Romans 1:26-27... that is the verse that I believe states it out specifically... although I don't like using it much because it is very harsh.

There is also some others... but you can take a look at the Topical Guide for that... yah... =|

Now concerning your knowledge about what God has said to his prophets and what he hasn't, The statements that I am referring to are statements that are talked about all the time on this form. This discussion is an example of that. common Points That Apologists Make

Yes, I know of that topic, and I know of the statements within it, but one thing I have learned in my life, is that it is important not to predict ahead of time what God will do. Nor to tell him what to do. I am someone who believes the priesthood ban had a purpose, albeit one that wasn't what people thought it was. So no, that doesn't mean the church won't eventually allow such marriages, but I don't think they will. Why, but because I think I may be able to see the reason God does not wish such marriages. In addition, there was a prophecy known, that one day, African Americans would receive the priesthood. It was known, that one day, that day would come. There is no such prophecy for this, and I do not think it wise to presume that God would do such, he is, after all, God.

Now about asking God. I can not even count the number of times I have fasted prayed, then fasted again about this subject. I have prayed about this for literally decades. I don't expect you to know my heart. But to say that maybe I should pray about this and somehow there will be an answer is the promise that many gay Mormons have found elusive.

Well then, you pray a little more. You pray, and you pray, and you pray... and you keep on praying till you can't pray anymore... and that's when your answer will come. It'll come in the time when you are about to give up, but you decide, just one more time. You have to put your trust fully in him, and then he will give you the answer you were seeking... it will be a sweet relief, that it will.

God put you on this earth so that way you could have a really really really hard test. Enduring till the end, is really, one of the hardest tests there is, if not the hardest. And he's pretty brutal about how strongly he uses it. But it's for our own good.

For me now, I still feel His spirit. I feel his love. I feel God knows me and cares about me. It is the best answer I have ever gotten from my prayers. A peace in my heart that everything will be alright is all I need to know.

This I understand, for I have many trials myself, and this is the thing I seek for, and recieve... comfort... peace... happiness... but as I must throw off my trial, you too must throw off yours... you must overcome someday. I have a reason to throw off mine, now what would be the reason for you to throw off yours?

I think, if we could find a reason, things would be.... so much easier.

It is the answer He has given me.

For the time yes... but sometime, someday... he will ask you to step out of the box... he has for me... much of the time I've failed... but I've always returned to him... he will ask you someday to step out of the box... will you trust him enough... and love him enough... to follow him?

Trials are tough, and the rides are rough, but the victory is sweet in the end... and happy too. =)

I know now may not be your time, but we'll all be waiting, waiting there, waiting there for you, when you pull through. We'll all be waiting there for you =D.

Best Wishes,

TAO