Changing The Mormon Conversation On Homosexuality

[Calm]

I was trying to verify this "asterisk" issue, in the thread I started, and the handbook that was quoted didn't mention "repeated homosexual activities" that I recall. Can you give the reference, please? Here on the board?

That is probably Handbook 1, not 2 which is online, and they probably shouldn't give the reference as that is not in public domain.

[Calm]

It probably is the most repugnant sin that was ever devised and I believe the most soul destroying.

I can think of worse: abuse of a child, abortion purely for convenience (knowing the spiritual consequences), murder, abuse of family members, anything done with malicious intent to harm another, adultery (which is a betrayal of covenants), human sacrifice and cannibalism, torture, blaspheming God and the Spirit.....

I think I could compile quite a list before I got to homosexual behaviour (that is comparable to typical consensual heterosexual behaviour, I am not talking about the extreme and abusive varieties...which I personally feel are no less soul destroying if done by in a heterosexual way and not a homosexual one).

Edited June 27, 2012 by calmoriah

[CASteinman]

I was trying to verify this "asterisk" issue, in the thread I started, and the handbook that was quoted didn't mention "repeated homosexual activities" that I recall. Can you give the reference, please? Here on the board?

Please note. It is not "repeated homosexual activities". It is disciplinary action for repeated homosexual activities. The notation does not appear by magic or on a whim.

[Libs]

Okay, but why would there be disciplinary action...or why not?

[Libs]

That is probably Handbook 1, not 2 which is online, and they probably shouldn't give the reference as that is not in public domain.

Sigh

[Calm]

Sigh

Sorry. Are you still friends with the local bishop? You might ask him to show you it if so if you want to know the precise language. Edited June 27, 2012 by calmoriah

[CASteinman]

Okay, but why would there be disciplinary action...or why not?

Disciplinary Councils are held for certain serious sins. The quality of the sin and the pattern of repetition are key factors in determining if there is such action.

http://www.lds.org/ensign/1990/09/a-chance-to-start-over-church-disciplinary-councils-and-the-restoration-of-blessings

[Libs]

Sorry. Are you still friends with the local bishop? You might ask him to show you it if so if you want to know the precise language.

No, I haven't talked to my Bishop in a couple of years.

[Libs]

Disciplinary Councils are held for certain serious sins. The quality of the sin and the pattern of repetition are key factors in determining if there is such action.

http://www.lds.org/e...on-of-blessings

Okay, thanks, CA.

[SamIam]

Okay, but why would there be disciplinary action...or why not?

When we get hung up on the Jot and Tittles of membership records, I wonder if we aren't missing the boat entirely. It's called disciplinary action, however if you have ever worked with someone who had the humility, the patience, and the desire to correct their past mistakes, then you are witness to the miracle of forgiveness. My experience has been that to a fault they are grateful for the clear distinction that the disciplinary action provides and rebaptism and the renewal of their blessings constitute.

On the other hand until an individual has been convinced of the need to approach God with a broken heart and a contrite spirit they are an entirely different subset. Usually, resentful and condemnatory, the difference in the countenance of the two sides of the disciplinary attitude, stand in stark contrast to the remarkable healing power of forgiveness and humility of those capable of winning the battle for their own souls. It’s a good thing, a powerful experience and the attitude of gratitude and love these people feel is precious. I think we do a great disservice by fanning the flames of umbrage over a dot on a membership record when far greater issues are at stake. I reiterate. The process is valuable to those that seek to redress their standing with God.

I do not know when or where the practice of the asterix began but I wonder if it just makes sense. If we can drop the hypersensitivity for just a moment and think in terms of practical aspects of being a world organization subject to litigious reprisal, the considerations on the list are simply practical issues that protect both the church AND the individual from being in positions where there is even a remote possibility of recidivistic behavior or simply excessive temptation that can be mitigated by avoiding the obvious. The asterix is the simplest, quietest, least invasive method possible to alert a Bishop or otherwise to the challenges that may reflect potential concern on the churches temporal liability and the members spiritual liability. For this reason alone, every male in the church retains a assumed asterix, if you will, and in recent years under certain conditions a man is not permitted to teach alone in primary classes with young children without another person present. It just is and sadly needs to be that way.

Better an asterix on a membership record now than a neon light and a massive gong at the pearly gates...

Edited June 27, 2012 by SamIam

[Jaybear]

In 35 years I have never seen anyone in the Church bully anyone else for their "sexual orientation" as it is called.

From Bishop Fletcher.

It is apparent to me that within the “culture” of our religion, widespread bullying is still occurring — and this extends across all age ranges. This is often done without malicious intent, but none the less, it inflicts serious and unnecessary emotional wounds.

Perhaps the gay members of this community can shed some light on who has a better grasp on reality.

[CASteinman]

Perhaps the gay members of this community can shed some light on who has a better grasp on reality.

I do not like your implication that either person has a poor grasp on reality. it is rather insulting.

Edited June 27, 2012 by CASteinman

[BlueDreams]

I do think this is an important conversation to have. I don't think the moral stance of the church should change. It is what it is and is supposed to be. BUT I agree with the main point of the article which talked more about the attitude and stance of members....which often doesn't match up with the second greatest commandment: love thy neighbor as thyself. I don't think this dialogue can change unless it is brought up and actually discussed. And I think the accuracy and guidance needed for LDS struggling to come to terms with their sexuality and their faith can't be without hearing the faithful stories of others. Then again, I think dialogue about sex in general needs to be broadened within the members dialogue. What I see in both is that the way we discuss it now in the world is heavily polarized. Either you're freed by living out your desires or your freed by removing them. Either they're good and should be celebrated or they're bad and should be pushed down. I don't know if this is what is desired or meant when either end discusses homosexuality. But it's what comes off as the only feasible options. In such a view, I think the needs of the majorinty (who should fall somewhere in between) are not understood and thus not met. Basically the issue is painted so black and white that when one fails to live "righteously" (which may infer to many trying to make their attractions go away) then one will have to live "true to themselves" (which means acting out natural desires). I've been going on a kick reading up story after story of members gay/ssa (different people likeds different terms) and few state their attractions went away. Most simply found means to navigate their desires through the atonement and the gospel....if there was change most described it as a miraculous event rather than something they just had to work on and overcome. The current dialogue would be as helpful as expecting all of us to walk on water through faith (you know, since peter did it). When they can't it brings unnecessary shame and despair...they've "failed." The only thing failing is understanding the purpose and means of the gospel and understanding what it truly means to overcome. The minimal discussion, limited understanding, and often callous or ignorant remarks to me supports more this to occur as people feel more inclined to stay silent and struggle through it by themselves. The gospel and church was not created to make for a lonely travail through mortality.

With luv,

BD

[Jaybear]

I do not like your implication that either person has a poor grasp on reality. it is rather insulting.

One of you perceives that bullying is widespread and pervasive. The other suggests that from his perspective its nonexistence, what conclusion should I draw?

[rodheadlee]

One of you perceives that bullying is widespread and pervasive. The other suggests that from his perspective its nonexistence, what conclusion should I draw?

None, there is not enough information.

Edited June 27, 2012 by rodheadlee

[happy]

How often do gay members create a self-fulfilled prophecy? A strange look, a change of plans, a missed invite? The strange look could have been a spot on a wall, the change of plans could have been a sick child, and a missed invite could have been an actual mail mistake. When someone is overly sensitive, however, people can create assumptions, believing the worst.

[Grundelwalken]

I think we would have more gay/lesbian active members if they didn't have an *asterik near their name if they've come out openly. I heard that this is done, after listening to the Mormonstories podcast with Benji Schwimmer. I guess this alerts any bishop that they are not to get certain callings, possibly the ones that deal with children. This is quite upsetting for the our LGBT members. Who would want that by your name, almost like the scarlet letter. Especially if you hadn't done anything to warrant it? As if these people are all child molesters. So sad, so darn sad.

I have spent considerable time with these records and have never seen an asterisk on any record unless there was discipline regarding some major form of sin (predatory sexual behavior, child molestation, etc.). Whatever you have heard is NOT TRUE!! MW

Dang, I have to learn not to post until I have scanned a little farther in the thread. Anyway, I guess this is just another witness. MW

Edited June 27, 2012 by Grundelwalken

[Buzzard]

How often do gay members create a self-fulfilled prophecy? A strange look, a change of plans, a missed invite? The strange look could have been a spot on a wall, the change of plans could have been a sick child, and a missed invite could have been an actual mail mistake. When someone is overly sensitive, however, people can create assumptions, believing the worst.

Trust me, gay people do not have a monopoly on this. Somewhere there is a Brigham Young quote, to the best of my reccolection, it went something like: "He who takes offense when no offense is intended is a fool. He who takes offense when offense is intended is also a fool".

That said, of course we should be nice to people-all people. But there can be no misunderstanding that even while being nice to people, if they are in sin, we cannot accept then sin. Christ came to save us from our sins, not in our sins. Not exactly an original though, I know. But does seem germaine.

[Tacenda]

In three out of maybe 7 wards that I've attended throughout my marriage, one of the bishopric, not the bishop but 2 counselors and a ward clerk, had an affair while serving in that capacity. For these men, after the repentance process and coming back into the fold, is there a "notation" mark next to their name for life? Or is homosexual sin different? If in fact there is a policy with the "notation" mark.

Edited June 27, 2012 by Tacenda

[Weston Krogstadt]

Oh G--!

Do we really need another thread on why "Mormons are wrong about homosexuality"!?!

Is there anything in this propoganda link that hasn't been said at least a hundred times before!?!?!?

Amen!

[Weston Krogstadt]

The American Liberal Establishment had their chance to show how open-minded they were back in the 1830s. Back then when the issue of polygamy was being discussed, that was the time for them to come out in favor of changing the definition of marriage. The liberal establishment decided to keep their mouths shut on the subject of polygamy and let the ploygamists be molested by local mobs. To this very day, liberals still take a very aggressive stance against polygamy, but expect the whole world, including the Mormons, to get all excited about accepting gay marriage. Liberals are not open-minded, they will only fight for certain political ideologies, while throwing other groups under the bus. They have decided to take a stand in support of gay marriage, I have not.

[Jaybear]

The American Liberal Establishment had their chance to show how open-minded they were back in the 1830s. Back then when the issue of polygamy was being discussed, that was the time for them to come out in favor of changing the definition of marriage. The liberal establishment decided to keep their mouths shut on the subject of polygamy and let the ploygamists be molested by local mobs. To this very day, liberals still take a very aggressive stance against polygamy, but expect the whole world, including the Mormons, to get all excited about accepting gay marriage. Liberals are not open-minded, they will only fight for certain political ideologies, while throwing other groups under the bus. They have decided to take a stand in support of gay marriage, I have not.

The thread is not about gay marriage or liberals.

Its about (1) whether bullying by LDS members against gays is pervasive, and (2) if so what, if anything should be done.

BTW, I am liberal and I believe that the laws which criminalize polygamy between consenting adults are an unwarranted infringement on individual liberty.

Put the issue on the ballot, and you have my vote.

[Libs]

The thread is not about gay marriage or liberals.

Its about (1) whether bullying by LDS members against gays is pervasive, and (2) if so what, if anything should be done.

BTW, I am liberal and I believe that the laws which criminalize polygamy between consenting adults are an unwarranted infringement on individual liberty.

Put the issue on the ballot, and you have my vote.

Ditto. Same here.

[california boy]

Whether there is asterix next to someone's name is probably irrelevant. The fact is, if someone is in a homosexual relationship they will be excommunicated unless they decide to leave the person they love and become celibate. There really isn't any wiggle room for the stake president.

In the end, most gays leave the church either by excommunication or just walk away from it. Those that are straight can not understand why someone who is gay wouldn't choose celibacy. Those that are gay can't understand how someone could choose a life of loneliness and never have love in their lives. This bishop sees the tragedy in that because he presides in an area of the country where there is a lot of faithful gay members. He is trying to find some kind of common ground. But the reality is, there is no common ground. The church can teach tolerance, respect and equality in everything but marriage, but that is about it. Until there is a revelation, the churches hands are tied.

[Buzzard]

CB, I say this not in trying to be mean-spirited, because your posts are not confrontational, but even-headed and often pleasant. But we all need to be clear. There will be no revelation. If gay relationships were to be the moral equivilant of marriage as we understand it today, the very Plan of Salvation would be void.

This does not diminish the struggle for those who must choose, and I acknowledge that for those of us who do not have to make that choice, it is hard if not impossible to understand. But you said it yourself, there is no wiggle room.

One thing that we can do a better job at is communicating to our youth that if you feel SSA, acting on those feelings will make it infinitely harder to get back on the straight and narrow. It's much easier to avoid sin than to repent of it.