The inevitability of the rise of gay-affirming Christianity

[KevinG]

Responsible consumption of alcohol by adult citizens isn't "rejected by society." It's actually sanctioned and regulated, as any responsible behavior may be.

But by contrast there are no articles on how soon the LDS Church will catch up with society and allow those who consume alcohol in a moderate amount to hold Temple recommends.

There are also no movements to liberalize the LDS stance on dating under the age of 16 even though it is common among the peers of our youth and often a source of criticism and bullying of Mormon youth.

[Sky]

Deb,

I've said nothing about liking or disliking your idea--and my reaction really isn't the point. What you say above is all fine and good, as an explanation of your personal feelings and private belief on the subject of the atonement, celestial marriage, etc, but it doesn't really answer the question I posed:

Can you point to anything doctrinally-authoritative that definitively states that it is official LDS doctine that homosexuality or "same-sex attraction" is, in your words, "only a condition of mortality"...?

(As I've learned many times through FAIR and here on MD&D, talks in The Ensign aren't cannonical sources).

Daniel2

We do have what Elder Holland said in his PBS 'The Mormons' interview. And I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss this just because it might not be considered 'cannonical.' It's still the words of an apostle, and as such they should carry some weight.

"I do know that this will not be a post-mortal condition. It will not be a post-mortal difficulty. I have a niece who cannot bear children. That is the sorrow and the tragedy of her life. She who was born to give birth will never give birth, and I cry with her. ... I just say to her what I say to people struggling with gender identity: "Hang on, and hope on, and pray on, and this will be resolved in eternity." These conditions will not exist post-mortality. I want that to be of some hope to some. ..."

[Deborah]

Can you point to anything doctrinally-authoritative that definitively states that it is official LDS doctine that homosexuality or "same-sex attraction" is, in your words, "only a condition of mortality"...?

I thought I already did. The Law of Celestial Marriage, the Law of Chastity, the fact that anyone practicing SSA is excommunicated.

[KevinG]

I thought I already did. The Law of Celestial Marriage, the Law of Chastity, the fact that anyone practicing SSA is excommunicated.

Just to clarify - not all who have struggled with sexual sins are excommunicated. Subject to church counsel and suspension of proveledges covers a wide range of conditions - the most extreme of which is excommunication.

Same Sex Attraction is not a practice it is a condition or state of mind/body. Homosexuality is a practice only if someone is sexually active with a same sex partner. I know homosexuals who are fully active, single and privately living the Gospel fully. It is far from easy for them, but it is done.

Edited September 26, 2011 by DaddyG

[wenglund]

Because the person's individual experience is the over-riding factor.

What does "individual experience" as an "over-riding factor" have to do with whether something can legitimately be described as a disorder or not?

There isn't a diagnosis for homosexual behavior because that denotes a medical or psychological condition.

Speaking of naive, the word "disorder" doesn't refer just to medical or psychological conditions. It can also refer to irregularities or dysfunctions of various sorts, like "learning disorders". I believe a reasonable case can be made showing sexual attraction towards someone of the same sex is both irregular (not normal) and dysfunctional (it inclines the use of one's reproductive apparatus in ways that defy it obvious functionality). Now, whether such irregularity and dysfunction have a psychological and/or medical component to it, is open to debate.

As a homosexual and in my experience of God, I believe that God transcends sexual orientation, gender, race, etc. They are non-issues because God is more than any of that. God is not to be subjected to finite characteristics but to be understood to be outside the human concepts of 'forever' and 'eternal'.

That is one way for humans to rationalize things. I, personally, prefer to let God tell me what is an issue for him or not. To each their own.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited September 26, 2011 by wenglund

[Daniel2]

We do have what Elder Holland said in his PBS 'The Mormons' interview. And I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss this just because it might not be considered 'cannonical.' It's still the words of an apostle, and as such they should carry some weight.

"I do know that this will not be a post-mortal condition. It will not be a post-mortal difficulty. I have a niece who cannot bear children. That is the sorrow and the tragedy of her life. She who was born to give birth will never give birth, and I cry with her. ... I just say to her what I say to people struggling with gender identity: "Hang on, and hope on, and pray on, and this will be resolved in eternity." These conditions will not exist post-mortality. I want that to be of some hope to some. ..."

I'm not asking for quotes "that carry weight." I'm asking for official doctrine. Do you mean to suggest that everything that an apostle says that is recorded should be considered official LDS doctrine...?

Daniel2

[Daniel2]

I thought I already did. The Law of Celestial Marriage, the Law of Chastity, the fact that anyone practicing SSA is excommunicated.

In all honesty, Deb--I'm really not trying to be obtuse here--I'm trying to be very specific and very focused.

None of the items you list--the law of Celestial Marriage, the Law of Chastity, and "the fact" that many (though not all) that engage in same-sex behaviors ("practicing SSA" isn't a very specific term...)--are cannonical examples of your assertion that "homosexuality or same-sex attraction is only a condition of mortality."

I understand you feel they support your beliefs--but what I'm saying is that none of the items you've described is a "silver bullet" that doesn't leave any wiggle room for future leaders to change the LDS church's approach to same-sex relationships.

Daniel2

[Damien the Leper]

What does "individual experience" as an "over-riding factor" have to do with whether something can legitimately be described as a disorder or not?

Because attempting to label or diagnose such a situation is useless. The individual is the authority in understanding their own sexual orientation. There is nothing that a doctor, a therapist or GA can tell me that holds a definitive understanding of how I self identify.

And unfortunately, many people will use what I have said to promote a possible slippery slope argument.

Speaking of naive, the word "disorder" doesn't refer just to medical or psychological conditions. It can also refer to irregularities or dysfunctions of various sorts, like "learning disorders". I believe a reasonable case can be made showing sexual attraction towards someone of the same sex is both irregular (not normal) and dysfunctional (it inclines the use of one's reproductive apparatus in ways that defy it obvious functionality). Now, whether such irregularity and dysfunction have a psychological and/or medical component to it, is open to debate.

You assume that I was attempting to define the word disorder or how it is used in different ways. I was not. I was specifically speaking of a distinct situation.

That is one way for humans to rationalize things. I, personally, prefer to let God tell me what is an issue for him or not. To each their own.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

But this is what has been determined for me through prayer and meditation. Save me the lecture of "you're trying to find your personal beliefs reflected in your relationship with God". I'm not rationalizing anything. I know what my relationship is with God and it is the best it has ever been and the line of communication is clear.

[Deborah]

I understand you feel they support your beliefs--but what I'm saying is that none of the items you've described is a "silver bullet" that doesn't leave any wiggle room for future leaders to change the LDS church's approach to same-sex relationships.

I don't see how they indicate there is wiggle room. The doctrine is separate from practice and I don't see doctrine changing to suit practice to accommodate a lifestyle that is not in keeping with the laws of God or the eternal purpose of man.

[seriously honestly]

I don't see how they indicate there is wiggle room. The doctrine is separate from practice and I don't see doctrine changing to suit practice to accommodate a lifestyle that is not in keeping with the laws of God or the eternal purpose of man.

Deborah, what I think he is getting at is how do you marry refrences you provided with the passage in Alma 34 that he brought up? Is there anything in LDS scripture only, that would show that SSA is a condition of mortality that changes after death?

[jskains]

Propogating the stance that homosexuality is a form of disorder or condition is at best...naive. What is absolutely surprising is that the scriptures are silent on the matter. Lev. 18:20, Romans 1:26-27, 1 & 2 Timothy, etc. are not in context support for a conservative position. The Bible is not a book about sex it is a book about God and how He relates to His creation.

The two words in the Greek manuscripts, malakoi and arsenokoitai, do not denote the traditionally conservative sense. They more specifically describe a personal affliction and offense against oneself or possibly used as adjectives.

This issue will continue to be a topic of debate so long as religionists pit the conservative theology against liberal theology. Perhaps Moderate Theology is a more appropriate road that allows for the greatest commandment ever given to be put in full effect. LOVE. God is LOVE. Jesus is LOVE. LOVE is what we should be and strive for and be an example of.

I think ignoring the possibility that they are disorders is at best naive, at worst moving forward for Satan to further move people away from God.

And how is "A man shall not lie with another man as he would a woman for that would be an abomination" silent on the matter? It is even further clarified in a list of sexual sins. It's only silent if you don't have ears.

JMS

[jskains]

Because attempting to label or diagnose such a situation is useless. The individual is the authority in understanding their own sexual orientation. There is nothing that a doctor, a therapist or GA can tell me that holds a definitive understanding of how I self identify.

And unfortunately, many people will use what I have said to promote a possible slippery slope argument.

You assume that I was attempting to define the word disorder or how it is used in different ways. I was not. I was specifically speaking of a distinct situation.

But this is what has been determined for me through prayer and meditation. Save me the lecture of "you're trying to find your personal beliefs reflected in your relationship with God". I'm not rationalizing anything. I know what my relationship is with God and it is the best it has ever been and the line of communication is clear.

So you are all for men who get sexual surgery and pretend to be women too, right? That's the next step. Gender fraud.

[David T]

You obviously are not aware that alcoholism can be linked to genetic influences: http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/19062348. Does that mean we should allow people to continue to abuse it. No we actually have programs to help people overcome it.

Alchoholism is the single best comparison. Homosexuality and Achoholism are conditions that result in a behavior. Both are considered to have a genetic component. Both are currently rejected by society.

JMS

Alright. I'll go along with that.

And Alcoholics, even when sober for decades, still identify as Alcoholics that struggle. There is a very good reason for Alcoholics to not give in to this behavior which only reacts in physical and emotional harm, abuse, and death. A key part in overcoming the action associated with Alcoholism is recognizing and identifying one is an Alcoholic, recognizing the wrong and harm that comes from it, repairing those wrongs, and moving forward one day at a time.

Going into the realm of human sexuality It actually does appear that the B4U-ACT are acting, in many ways, like Alcoholics Anonymous for pedophilia. Inviting others to admit their feelings, and strive to be counseled and overcome in such a way that they will overcome their innate desires to act, and be able to function in society all the while knowing they have a weakness.

Homosexuality is significantly different than those two, because those innate desires do not inherently result in abusive, harmful and injurious behavior. Homosexuality is no more dangerous to society than Heterosexuality. While both feelings can be abused, that is not the norm. With heterosexuality, there is a socially recognizable 'normalizer' - Marriage. With homosexuality, the social stigma keeps the signals of shame pressing them on. I see absolutely no societal need or advantage for homosexuals to refrain from monogomous committed relationships, and I can see reasons for encouraging such.

There is, however, powerful and very real societal need to hold back inclinations for Alcoholism and Pedophilia.

[Deborah]

Deborah, what I think he is getting at is how do you marry refrences you provided with the passage in Alma 34 that he brought up? Is there anything in LDS scripture only, that would show that SSA is a condition of mortality that changes after death?

Not knowing to what you are specifically referring I have no idea. I've already addressed this: Nay, ye cannot say this; for that same spirit which doth possess your bodies at the time that ye go out of this life, that same spirit will have power to possess your body in that eternal world.

[David T]

How will "following the trend" enable the Church to better meet its purpose in bringing us to Christ and enabling us to become like him and one with he and the Father.

In other words, how would "following the trend" help us on the path of progression and in fulfillment of the plan of salvation?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Building up families, focusing on the overriding doctrinal principle of covenant love and covenant family, building up Zion, and helping remove yet another degree of (perhaps unnecessary) alienation with many of God's children from listening and obeying the actual Gospel, instead of one that is constantly telling them that they're a mistake, and that God hates how they inherently feel, and that the idea of Heaven being preached (a lifetime of heterosexual marriage) seems more like h***.

[David T]

I thought I already did. The Law of Celestial Marriage, the Law of Chastity,

The Law of Chastity as given involves sexual relations only with one's spouse to whom they are legally and lawfully* wed.

Legal Gay marriage would in fact give homosexuals an option apart from celibacy in keeping the Law of Chastity.

the fact that anyone practicing SSA is excommunicated.

False.

* - "Legal and Lawful" is a technical term. It does not distinguish, as some LDS have popularly and unauthoritatively tried to explain, a difference between "Legal by the Government" and "Lawful by Church Standards". "Lawful" is an additional qualifier stating that what is done in accordance with the intent of the referenced established legal law, not just according to the literal words. A change in the Law of Chastity as given would need to be made to restrict government approved Gay marriages as the Law is currently given.

[jskains]

Building up families, focusing on the overriding doctrinal principle of covenant love and covenant family, building up Zion, and helping remove yet another degree of (perhaps unnecessary) alienation with many of God's children from listening and obeying the actual Gospel, instead of one that is constantly telling them that they're a mistake, and that God hates how they inherently feel, and that the idea of Heaven being preached (a lifetime of heterosexual marriage) seems more like h***.

Your missing the point. Homosexuality is against God's will. We are not here to make sinners feel better about sinning. A lot of people who are alcoholics can control there condition to a level, but still hit the bottle way too often. They could function as priesthood holders, temple workers, etc. And the fact they are alcoholic gives them great shame. Does that mean we need to stop viewing alcoholism as a sin? Should we remove it from the requirements because being told your "uncontrollable" actions are wrong will make you shamed?

How about Adultery? I am sure an adulterer feels bad about being labeled as such. Shall we stop looking down on Adulterers because God is all about love and no one can feel ashamed for some reason?

JMS

[David T]

Your missing the point. Homosexuality is against God's will.

A reference in Leviticus' highly redacted ancient desert law, declarations of Paul, and speculative interpretation based on implications of present ordinance symbols have not convinced me that this is the case.

Of course, I also believe Brigham Young's conviction based on interpretation of scriptures and tradition to mean it was not God's will for Blacks to hold the Priesthood didn't accurately express the mind of God, either - I do not believe in any way that Black Marriage up until 1978 was not viewed as pleasing in God's will, even though policy kept it from being approved of in the Temple.

That took a few generations, and a specific desire of Presidents of the Church to specifically and prayerfully study and ponder the question before President Kimball took his highly studied out conclusion to the Lord, and had it ratified (powerfully to him and all present General Authorities) to overturn the long-standing policy, belief, and tradition. God's will was clearly made manifest by an act of power - and it overturned generations of assumptions and tradition of exclusion and excused.

I still hold Brigham Young and everyone from him to President Kimball to have been true prophets of the Lord. I just truly think there's an important lesson in there of how we should approach assumptions of God's desire based on implication and tradition.

Edited September 27, 2011 by nackhadlow

[jskains]

A reference in Leviticus' highly redacted ancient desert law, declarations of Paul, and speculative interpretation based on implications of present ordinance symbols have not convinced me that this is the case.

I don't think God Himself could convince you. Especially if Paul is so easily dismissed.

God declared homosexuality to be an abomination. Why such strong wording if it was to be narrowed to some "desert law" that apparently you think was included in scripture for what, entertainment value?

BTW, ALL references to blacks is speculative. There are actual quotes on homosexuality in the Bible.

JMS

[wenglund]

Because attempting to label or diagnose such a situation is useless. The individual is the authority in understanding their own sexual orientation. There is nothing that a doctor, a therapist or GA can tell me that holds a definitive understanding of how I self identify.

Your failing to consider things on a macro basis. Such labels and diagnosis are useful for crafting beneficial public policy as well as appropriate Church policies, etc.

You assume that I was attempting to define the word disorder or how it is used in different ways. I was not. I was specifically speaking of a distinct situation.

Could you please point out the specific distinct situation you spoke to because I couldn't see it anywhere indicated in your post that I responded to.

Be that as it may, while you may have intended to speak specifically, my point was intended to speak more generally. I did so, not because of what I assumed about you (your mistaken assumption to the contrary notwithstanding), but because of a point I wished to make of myself.

But this is what has been determined for me through prayer and meditation. Save me the lecture of "you're trying to find your personal beliefs reflected in your relationship with God". I'm not rationalizing anything. I know what my relationship is with God and it is the best it has ever been and the line of communication is clear.

You are entitled to your opinion, as am I. To each their own.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited September 27, 2011 by wenglund

[jskains]

BTW, what I find equally odd is there seems to be some volume requirement to the Bible. It is as if there needs to be a few hundred passages before there is meaning to a phrase or text. Why is that? Why does homosexuality have to be condemned X number of times before it is taken seriously? I have seen a lot of comments how there were not very many references to same-sex behavior. So the Bible did not dwell on it. It said it was an abomination then moved on. How much more do you need? Is there a set number of scriptures that need to reference a topic before it means something? Anyone know the number?

[David T]

I think it's possible that some day we may hear a version of what Elder McConkie said in 1978:

There are statements in our literature by the early Brethren that we have interpreted to mean that the Negroes homosexuals would not receive the priesthood [or be sealed] in mortality. I have said the same things, and people write me letters and say, "You said such and such, and how is it now that we do such and such?" All I can say is that it is time disbelieving people repented and got in line and believed in a living, modern prophet. Forget everything that I have said, or what President Brigham Young Spencer W. Kimball or George Q. Cannon Boyd K. Packer or whoever has said in days past that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world.

It doesn't make a particle of difference what anybody ever said about the Negro homosexual matter before the first day of June 20__. It is a new day and a new arrangement, and the Lord has now given the revelation that sheds light out into the world on this subject. As to any slivers of light or any particles of darkness of the past, we forget about them. We now do what meridian Israel did when the Lord said the gospel should go to the Gentiles. We forget all the statements that limited the gospel to the house of Israel, and we start going to the Gentiles.

Edited September 27, 2011 by nackhadlow

[jskains]

I think it's possible that some day we may hear a version of what Elder McConkie said in 1978:

There are statements in our literature by the early Brethren that we have interpreted to mean that the Negroes homosexuals would not receive the priesthood [or be sealed] in mortality. I have said the same things, and people write me letters and say, "You said such and such, and how is it now that we do such and such?" All I can say is that it is time disbelieving people repented and got in line and believed in a living, modern prophet. Forget everything that I have said, or what President Brigham Young Spencer W. Kimball or George Q. Cannon Boyd K. Packer or whoever has said in days past that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world.

It doesn't make a particle of difference what anybody ever said about the Negro homosexual matter before the first day of June 20__. It is a new day and a new arrangement, and the Lord has now given the revelation that sheds light out into the world on this subject. As to any slivers of light or any particles of darkness of the past, we forget about them. We now do what meridian Israel did when the Lord said the gospel should go to the Gentiles. We forget all the statements that limited the gospel to the house of Israel, and we start going to the Gentiles.

HOMOSEXUALITY IS NOT A RACE!!! Stop comparing it to blacks!!! Being black is not a behavior! Being homosexual is not a RACE!

Ugh this comparison is so poor, I do not understand why it keeps getting repeated! It's insulting to African Americans.

[David T]

I don't think God Himself could convince you. Especially if Paul is so easily dismissed.

We dismiss most of Paul's culturally sensitive views on celibacy and women in the Church today.

God declared homosexuality to be an abomination. Why such strong wording if it was to be narrowed to some "desert law" that apparently you think was included in scripture for what, entertainment value?

The Pentateuch has an extremely complex textual history, edited multiple times throughout Israel's history from monarchical reforms, to re-interpretation and editing during Babylonian exile - much of which is polemic and didactic. I find it very difficult to pick elements from Pentateuch and declare, "Yes, I'm certain it was the will of God to order the murder of men,women, and children."

BTW, ALL references to blacks is speculative. There are actual quotes on homosexuality in the Bible.

That's not what Brigham Young or Bruce R. McConkie thought. They were sure they were on scriptural solid ground.

[wenglund]

Building up families, focusing on the overriding doctrinal principle of covenant love and covenant family, building up Zion, and helping remove yet another degree of (perhaps unnecessary) alienation with many of God's children from listening and obeying the actual Gospel, instead of one that is constantly telling them that they're a mistake, and that God hates how they inherently feel, and that the idea of Heaven being preached (a lifetime of heterosexual marriage) seems more like h***.

You are speaking wistfully here about "love" and families and marriage, whereas my question was about sexual attraction and attendant sexual behaviors (homosexuality).

Thanks, -Wade Englund-