Is Being Gay A Sin? Does It Need Amelioration?

[Damien the Leper]

So for those who don't believe homosexuality is a sin, but rather the behavior, do you disagree with the policy of the BSA, supported by the LDS Church which bans gays from scouting, even celibate gays.

The BSA has every right to implement whatever conservative policies it sees fit.

[Freedom]

I am not gay so I would never presume to speak authoritatively on this issue, but there is an overriding principle that, just because something is natural in innate, that does not make it right. We all act on inclinations that, to us, are perfectly natural.

If we assume that homosexuality is one of those things that is natural but not right, there are an awful lot of other conditions that would be far worse. I would rather be an active mormon gay man in North America than a women in Afghanistan or any other middle eastern country; or a heterosexual with a terminal illness at age 4. I suspect that if an otherwise well adjusted gay man (not to say that gay men are not well adjusted, but if all things being equal) saw my personal struggles, he would gladly take up his cross and carry on. There are heterosexual women in my ward who have been single all their life and have no prospect of having a loving relationship. I know several heterosexual men who are attracted to women but, due to personality or medical disorders, they will never have companion.

There are countless trials that are placed upon us, our job is to endure and learn from them to become stronger and not to judge others because they sin differently than us.

[SamIam]

This is a rough draft but for length and time I will post as is.

Is being gay a sin? Does being gay require amelioration? Can it be done? If so, how is that to be done? Are the methods of Evergreen and NorthStar adequate or effective? Can they be improved? If so, how?

Being Gay:

What do we add to this question that makes it more sensible than what the brethren have already stated? To have these feelings is not the sin. To act upon them is.

Is it any different, for any heterosexual man, this burden that is born by SSA men? I think not except that we don’t often see the traditional marriage parsed out of the gospel message in such a way as that it gets dissected over and over with a thousand differing opinions held up as something insightful to borrow upon the suffering of the SSA folks.

However, to bring the arenas face to face, SSA’s acting out on inappropriate behaviors will cost them the blessings of obedience. Typical marriage partners that willfully do not keep their activities within the boundaries the Lord expects will fair no better. They too will lose the benefits of obedience. However, since this relationship does not get parsed out with the same level of frequency and defiance, finding those exact definitions is more challenging. However, this much I know clearly, that if the church never defined the details of what is appropriate behind closed doors, it is given unto those who seek it to know what is right and what is wrong.

The point is equal attention effort and obligation rests upon both sides of this debate as it technically is not the act of marriage that is weighed but honoring the covenant.

Still, I accept that for the hetero, it will appear a higher chance of success in this endeavor as at least the choice of partner is consistent with the hope of being able to maintain the boundaries in proper form. Still, in both equations attraction is not the defining element of keeping the law – obedience is, and for many hetero’s it is as difficult to honor their choices in marriage as it is for the SSA group. Many will be shocked, I suspect that took the attitude on no holds barred behind marriage doors was irrelevant as long as partners were in agreement and it was a traditional marriage.

Amelioration:

Yes and no. Yes, in those instances where it can be ameliorated. Every reduction in emphasis should help diminish the degree of suffering that is associated with SSA. I am convinced that in truth there are far more in the SSA group that would never have acted out upon such feelings but for the degree of influence currently found in society – 60 years ago they would have never considered the option. Instead not all but most, in their teenage years, would have acted out on the typical breaches of obedience that would have been sanctioned according to social norms for disobedient behavior. Blueberry Hill was working out just fine for the majority of these. The fact that most who now partake have a wider venue of experimental options that are within societal norms of rebellion only means that the experimentation of youth will find itself involved in creating channels of brain development that find the entrenched desires of the flesh embedded in behaviors that will require almost impossible strength to overcome. Even if the acts never take place but the fantasy does it still alters our perspectives in harmful ways. Point it is the same for hetero as SSA on this matter. All who engage in any of the various acts if impropriety, be it hetero or SSA based, to the point of embedding them into their psyche will spend years getting them out. Hormones are exceptionally powerful shapers of the mind and psyche. It is not just being married that frees one from the power of these influences but it is honoring the covenant.

Lust obscures the feelings of attraction when it is acted on during those key developmental years of adolescence. Since lust is the origin of these desires, until it is conquered all baggage that hangs from it that we have meddled in will continue to plague us until lust is overcome. As well the hormonal power of influence will create chemical alterations at anytime one capitulates to them – it just seems more prominent in youth, not so much now as when I was younger.

Finally, of this group that may actually possess a natural sense of attraction to the same gender from birth and their subsequent natural development, and I do think that a very small number. Is there amelioration? I have no experience in this matter and cannot truly say. I do not know how to make it any more right by them that to simply say, I don’t know why this was your lot to bear, I am sorry for it. I cannot imagine the sense of hopelessness that must accompany the conflict within, however with the Lord all things are possible.

I will add that the one of two John Dehlin podcasts I watched one was the Benji Schwimmer one. All I can say is that he does not qualify as a born to be IMO. He was led to the venue that would provide the greatest stress against his remarkable but inadequate potential to be hetero. His family life growing up was heavily associated with potential that might have weakened him so that the next few life choices broke the camel’s back. Either way a hetero growing up in that environment would have been equally challenged to maintain a hetero relationship in the proper boundaries. It is possible there is familial evidence of that in his family.

It is where the church tells bishops to send gay men in the church. It is the teachings that the church wants those that are gay to receive. Evergreen is not David Matheson's organization, it is the churches under priesthood leadership. As far as I know, Matheson holds no "position" in Evergreen.

When I served in this position, I referred people to various help agencies as need arose. Often, I had people with identical problems. Some I could help with my level of counseling and others, it was simply that I could not reach beyond their rebellious desire to do things their way that prevented their assistance. These I would send to other venues and I never once had one make the kind of improvement that the repentant ones made.

From California Boy:

The church states that it doesn't know how or why a person is gay. In reality no one knows why someone is gay, even gay organizations. What I do know and what every gay person knows is that they are wired to be attracted to the same sex in every sense as someone who is straight is wired to be attracted to someone of the opposite sex. How it happened or why it happened is really irrelevant. Does it help a blind man to see better if he is given an explanation as to why he is blind?

A bishop is well suited to work with the repentant in most cases, but when that is not the case we send them to the ones who are suited for working with the rebellious who wish to technically remain such and would like to ease the burden that their rebelliousness generates. Now, I realize that statement is going to cause all sorts of angst to pop up in some people, my apologies. I also realize in a few cases it is a gross over-simplification for the individual sufferer but for the greater number, I believe it applies. I do believe that it is possible that those agencies and venues could possibly get someone to the point of getting to the point a bishop can help them by helping them distance from certain behaviors – it just was never my experience during the timeframe I worked with such individuals.

Still, my feeling was that when I had to send them elsewhere, I was unimpressed with the individuals providing the care. When I had follow-ups and discussions with the providers, of the material we could discuss it was my perception they were hiding their ignorance behind the chapter headings in their college texts books. They had no true knowledge they simply were current with the stated treatments for the stated conditions and their confidence was because that was what they were trained to do. However, we sent them to those venues precisely because of that same reason. They said they had a solution, we knew we did not.

Quote from California Boy

The hard questions are how do you deal with being all alone your whole life. How do you live without any close relationships with anyone? How do you travel this road all alone when the biggest drive in anyone's life is to share their life with a companion that they can love, trust, and honor. What will this life of loneliness lead to after we die? "it is not good for man to be alone" rings in every gay man’s head daily.

They always say men and women are so different that it is impossible for one to understand the other. I have always disagreed. While I could look at the trinkets on the mantel that were so precious to her, in my early years I could not fathom the attraction. However, one day an epiphany, as I was in my greenhouse, potting up a 6 inch exceptionally rare caudiciform from South Africa that I had paid over 400.00 dollars for I realized how she felt. As I handled and sensed how I cherished this new addition to my eclectic collection of rare plant species, I knew exactly how she felt. They acted upon her just like this precious item acted on me. It could have been a crescent wrench or a gun for a different type of man but we are not so different. I changed about how I looked at all things my wife held dear from that day forth. (mostly) It wasn’t really that I didn’t understand it was simply that the object of her affection was different and that was what I did not want to acknowledge until that moment. I hope that holds for a sensitive hetero as is does for a sensitive SSA person.

When we get to mature along normal lines of advancement in our lives the phases of our existence seem to pass reasonably well. Some more tumultuous than others but as long as we get to pass the stage we proceed to the next. However, take a young person, who is sexually abused as a child, they did not get out of the childhood phase like they should. In fact they do not leave the phase exactly but linger there in the tarnished state for its failure to gracefully pass as it should have while they add to it the subsequent tarnished perspectives that are influenced adversely for the uncompleted phase.

I once counseled with a woman in her 60’s that had never been married. She was the only women of that age I ever met that lamented the unrequited lustful desires of the flesh. She was like a teenager for the fact the phase had never been normally negotiated in the course of her life. She was an excellent person but was stuck also in the phase of the church that thinks that it is by what she could do that would save her in the end not realizing the power of the atonement if she would alter the focus.

For the gay person that must pass through an unnaturally incomplete phase of never feeling intimate companionship this is going to be a great battle. However it, again, is the same battle that all of us have. It does not ultimately matter if you are gay or hetero, the power that heals is belief in Christ. Do not hear the words doing all you can, or working harder, or doing more. It is stop with all of these things. It is simply accept. Born again is an actual state of change. It is the state where the person is changed as a person. An excessive focus on doing, which is so prevalent, in all of the church is as condemnatory to a hetero as a gay man or women. (not practicing). It is not that we do not do but that the focus on doing brings us under the burden of the law. There is no treatment, counseling, advice that exceeds the equal requirement that we all have to be born again.

I have pages and pages of quotes that focus on the fact that born again is not near as common in the church as most believe. The gift of the Holy Ghost has to be received and that for many takes years of their lives. None of us get there by focusing on what we don’t have, or are missing, or our loneliness, that focus obscures the opportunity. Broken heart, contrite spirit and then pleading with the Lord, believing that it will come seems the only way. For some this is a lifetime endeavor, many never get there. Nonetheless, your burden is no heavier than mine or any others for the struggle it is to simply accept what Christ freely offers. It is a major paradigm shift in thinking where we realize there is nothing anyone can do, no healing that can be provided t really and genuinely address the loneliness that all have in the separation from God. Conquer what separates us from that and we are never alone again.

Quote from California Boy

I wouldn't presume to tell the brethren what to believe. But if asked, I would ask them to prayerfully consider the opportunity to allow gay marriage in the church. Yes the Bible condemns lying with a man and calls it an abomination. It also calls adultery an abomination whose punishment is death. It also calls fornication an abomination punishable by death. Sex outside of marriage gets treated the exact same way across the board.

As to the church benefiting from this type of change, this is the saddest part of this entire message that California boy has written. When we begin to question against the obvious integrated principles of the gospel and parse out ones unique to ourselves, it illustrates how already the mind is being molded by the adversary to question what deep inside we already know. I love this quote by Neal A. Mawell:

"The gospel's principles do require synchronization. When pulled apart from each other or isolated, men's interpretations of these doctrines may be wild." (Neal A Maxwell, Ensign, May 1993)

Eternal life is a life of procreation. Levels of procreation that exceed simply hominid species but as the primary position of dominion in the eternities all levels of procreation depend on individuals successfully knowing how to keep their own procreative powers in appropriate boundaries. This principle is embraced in this quote by Brigham Young:

Brigham Young, October 8th, 1854.

The question I wish to ask is simply this; and I put it to all the Elders of Israel, and to all the men and women of intelligence in Israel which pertains to the Kingdom of God on Earth; and if the whole world were before me I would ask them the same question.

Can any man, or set of men officiate in dispensing the laws, and administering the ordinances of the Kingdom of God, or of the kingdoms and governments of the world legally, without first obeying those laws, and submitting to those ordinances themselves

. Do you understand me? If a foreigner wishes to become a citizen of the United States he must first become subject to this government; must you not first acknowlege and obey the laws of this government? Certainly you must.

Then, to apply this to the Kingdom of God on Earth, and ask yourselves if any man has the power, the influence[,] the right, the authority, to go forth and preach this gospel, and baptise for the remission of sins unless he himself has, in the first place, been baptised, ordained and legally called to that office? What would the Elders of Israel and every other sensible man say to this? They would all decide at once with me, that no man can lawfully officiate in any office in the Kingdom of God, [p.92]or in the governments of men, he has not been called to, and the authority of which has not been bestowed upon him.

I am not going to talk a thousand things to you, but I wish to tell you a few, and desire you to understand them, and connect them together. (A Sermon Delivered on 8 October 1854 The Teachings of President Brigham Young, Vol. 3, 1852-1854 [salt Lake City: Collier's Publishing Co., 1987], 343-68)

Hard doctrine perhaps and I fully expect those who want to say a prophet is only a prophet….will chime in here to discount Brigham’s point, but outside of being true it is imminently logical to boot.

However, it is the same for all of us. We each have a magnificent burden in overcoming ourselves so that we can exercise the simple choice to accept the born again experience that is offered by Jesus Christ – but therein lies the end of our loneliness and the beginning of our healing.

Edited July 19, 2012 by SamIam

[altersteve]

Yes. Some would argue that it's homosexual acts only because it's not a sin to be tempted, but the repentance process used by Stake and Ward leaders starting with the publication "God Loveth His Children" makes it clear that if one thinks of oneself as a "gay person" one is not on the road to repentance; ergo self identification as a homosexual means one has stopped struggling against temptation and accepts one's own sinful condition.

Apparently the Church doesn't agree with you, since I can think of at least one occasion where an openly gay individual has been called as a bishop. If he were sinning by being openly gay, then why do you think the Church would allow this? Why are openly gay Church members not disciplined?

I know you're outspoken on a lot of issues, BCSpace, but you're wrong on this one. The Church has always been careful to say that homosexual behavior is wrong. I've never heard the Church equate simply being attracted to members of the same gender (the very and only reasonable definition of "being gay," or bisexual or whatever) with sinning. Attractions and other such feelings and temptations are not things one can control. But we can control our actions, and that's what matters. That's what God wants from us more than anything -- to learn how to control ourselves and, in doing so, make the right decisions.

Edited July 18, 2012 by altersteve

[altersteve]

So for those who don't believe homosexuality is a sin, but rather the behavior, do you disagree with the policy of the BSA, supported by the LDS Church which bans gays from scouting, even celibate gays.

Yes, I disagree with the BSA on this. But the BSA is a private organization and, as such, as Valentinus pointed out above, it has the right to implement these policies.

Edited July 19, 2012 by altersteve

[Damien the Leper]

Apparently the Church doesn't agree with you, since I can think of at least one occasion where an openly gay individual has been called as a bishop. If he were sinning by being openly gay, then why do you think the Church would allow this? Why are openly gay Church members not disciplined?

I know you're outspoken on a lot of issues, BCSpace, but you're wrong on this one. The Church has always been careful to say that homosexual behavior is wrong. I've never heard the Church equate simply being attracted to members of the same gender (the very and only reasonable definition of "being gay," or bisexual or whatever) with sinning. Attractions and other such feelings and temptations are not things one can control. But we can control our actions, and that's what matters. That's what God wants from us more than anything -- to learn how to control ourselves and, in doing so, make the right decisions.

Thank you!

[SamIam]

Apparently the Church doesn't agree with you, since I can think of at least one occasion where an openly gay individual has been called as a bishop. If he were sinning by being openly gay, then why do you think the Church would allow this? Why are openly gay Church members not disciplined?

I know you're outspoken on a lot of issues, BCSpace, but you're wrong on this one. The Church has always been careful to say that homosexual behavior is wrong, and I've never heard the Church equate simply being attracted to members of the same gender (the very and only reasonable definition of "being gay," or bisexual or whatever) with sinning. Attraction and related thoughts and feelings are not something one can control. But we can control our actions, and that's what matters. That's what God wants from us more than anything -- to learn how to control ourselves and, in doing so, make the right decisions.

I was called as a Bishop as a sinful person and struggling with the processes that all must struggle with in their maturation of spirituality. Gay is simply one type of sinful potential, therefore in light of the fact that I was called perfection is not a requirement for a bishop. A certain level of obediance is. If you had said that your bishop friend was a practicing gay, I would have been unable to accept the veracity of your claim.

Edited July 19, 2012 by SamIam

[altersteve]

I was called as a Bishop as a sinful person and struggling with the processes that all must struggle with in their maturation of spirituality. Gay is simply one type of sinful potential, therefore in light of the fact that I was called perfection is not a requirement for a bishop. A certain level of obediance is. If you had said that your bishop friend was a practicing gay, I would have been unable to accept the veracity of your claim.

That's not what I meant. Allow me to clarify. I see a difference between practicing gay and openly gay, and I know of no instance where a Church member was disciplined just for the latter. Practicing homosexual behavior, of course, would result in Church discipline.

[Calm]

not to judge others because they sin differently than us.

Totally agree (and had a point to give you as well) but I would also add "or because they have a different trial than us."

I think too many judge people by how hard their life is, either giving them bonus points because they must be so spiritually strong to endure such, the Lord not giving out harsh trials to those who are weak in this view or for a complete 180, judging someone as more sinful due to a hard life because they reason that the individual must have done or be doing something evil to deserve it.

Besides both reasonings being faulty, I don't think it is possible to truly judge just how hard someone's life is from the outside. Hardships that start small and grow bigger are sometimes much easier to bear because one has developed coping mechanisms than hardship that might appear easier, but because they hit someone out of the blue are actually quite hard to cope with. History, maturity and a whole lot of other factors combine to determine just how hard a hardship really is for an individual, place another individual in a situation where a person seems to be breezing through and that individual might be having a nervous breakdown within 24 hours. Plus people both inflate and deflate the harshness of their lives when reporting to others as well as in their own minds so how is one supposed to accurately measure?

I think the Lord has set things up so we are encouraged to interact with people on a 'case by case' basis when dealing with them personally. This makes sense to me because it is a suggestion of things to come when we are celestial beings (if we choose to accept that gift) we will be one with each other then as well as with the Lord. Why not start treating each other that way now, bring heaven down to earth as much as we are able?

Edited July 19, 2012 by calmoriah

[SamIam]

Good enough. We are agreed for the most part it would appear.

[Damien the Leper]

I was called as a Bishop as a sinful person and struggling with the processes that all must struggle with in their maturation of spirituality. Gay is simply one type of sinful potential, therefore in light of the fact that I was called perfection is not a requirement for a bishop. A certain level of obediance is. If you had said that your bishop friend was a practicing gay, I would have been unable to accept the veracity of your claim.

And being straight isn't? I know of a celibate gay male who has never committed sexual sin who is in the same ward with his childhood friend who committed adultery.

[CASteinman]

I am of the opinion that some things are not sins in the sense that they require (and may not be amenable) to repentance in this life. There are a lot of these kinds of "non-sins" and they fall in the area of thought. Eventually we are supposed to be as God is. I think that includes our thoughts.

I believe I have met a few people who may not have to change quite so much of the way that they think, but I know for myself and most of the people I know well -- we have a lot of changing to do over time, in the future. I believe that we will have enhanced capability to improve this way in the resurrection, but it will still be very challenging. I suspect that the more we can do here, the better it will be for us.

[CASteinman]

Depends on what you mean by that and whether or not homosexuality is inborn or a disease.

You know... such conditions could be both ... or neither -- especially based upon how you define the word "disease".

[CV75]

The hard questions are how do you deal with being all alone your whole life.

Many people face the problem of life-long loneliness, coming in many different forms. The solution is the same for each (personally applying the Gospel), but each has to be open to receiving it. Everybody has seemingly insurmountable problems of some kind or another; we all get tested in this fashion. Some are more private and less socially/politically popular to address than others. Homosexuality is having its moment in the sun.

[Calm]

I would really love to know the numbers of heterosexuals who believe they will not have the opportunity to marry in this life in the Church in comparison to the number of homosexuals. Considering the percentage of homosexuals in a typical population and the percentage of older or disabled or other typically unlikely to marry, unmarried individuals, I would not be surprised if the heterosexuals in the Church who had an expectation (accurate or not) of having to be celibate for the rest of their lives if they chose to live the gospel to the fullest of their potential outnumbered the homosexuals in the Church (even those who leave the Church because they see the expectation of celibacy as an unnecessary burden) who anticipate never finding someone of the opposite gender they could desire physically believe their only choice to remain in the Church is to be celibate for the rest of their lives.

[SamIam]

Apparently the Church doesn't agree with you, since I can think of at least one occasion where an openly gay individual has been called as a bishop. If he were sinning by being openly gay, then why do you think the Church would allow this? Why are openly gay Church members not disciplined?

I think you have to cut BCSPACE some slack. In my opinion his is the most right of all that has been stated on this particular point, however, where we are distressing is between the degree of response from the church for declaring oneself as having temptations and acting out upon those temptations. In the ultimate perspective of God, I believe the idea that one applies a title of mortality to their state of being is the equivalent of saying I am a carnal man as if one can ultimately retain that designation and place of being and make it into the highest kingdom.

I have trouble with being a bit too judgmental. I could state that I can't help it, I'm just being honest. However if I think I can retain improper judgement as a part of my carnal being and make it into the highest degree I am as mistaken as the individual that claims the carnal designation of considering oneself gay. However, I can still serve in callings with the degree of my affliction just as a non practicing gay person can. But I still have to get beyond it at some point until the only title that defines me is the title of a servant of God, or a child of God or something that conveys the same sense of one heart one mind all my strength of being in his service.

Edited July 19, 2012 by SamIam

[William Schryver]

There are many heterosexual men and women who have done so. It seems to me if possible for them, it is reasonable for those with homosexual tendencies.

This.

[SamIam]

And being straight isn't? I know of a celibate gay male who has never committed sexual sin who is in the same ward with his childhood friend who committed adultery.

Need a little more, I'm not sure what point of my response is in opposition to the point you are making.

[Calm]

In the perspective of God, I believe the idea that one applies a title of mortality to their state of being is the equivalent of saying I am a carnal man as if one can ultimately retain that designation and place of being and make it into the highest kingdom.

And yet the scriptures describe man as being carnal...so admitting it seems like one is simply believing what the scriptures say, which can include believing that eventually through God's work and grace we can put aside the carnal man.

[Hamilton Porter]

Is being gay a sin?

No

Does being gay require amelioration?

It certainly would help.

Can it be done? If so, how is that to be done? Are the methods of Evergreen and NorthStar adequate or effective?

It appears to be effective in some cases. But when it does work, it often has side effects. Some doubt the sincerity of those who have been "cured" but I think unless we have evidence otherwise, we should take their word that they were able to change.

Can they be improved? If so, how?

Yes, pharmaceutically. They've already been able to turn gay rats and fruitflies straight. Humans shouldn't be far behind.

There is already a drug, prenatal dexamosthene, that pregnant mothers can take to reduce the likelihood of their daughter becoming a lesbian. I am hopeful in this regard.

Edited July 19, 2012 by Hamilton Porter

[CASteinman]

As for me, I'm not necessarily looking for a cure in this temporal existence but I am looking to be rid of this in the next.

The way I view things, I don't think the word "cure" is the right word... either in this life or in the next.

I think of it sort of the way I think about certain types of problems we all suffer from. There can be so many examples but let me try out just one.

I am right now trying to use econometric methods to forecast the price of oil. (Actually I am trying to do something else, but that is my first step). The problem is highly intractable. I am trying Vector Autoregression and I am examining some non-linear forms identified in a genetic algorithm. When it is all done though, I feel frustrated and .... stupid.

I recall the story of a man who experienced a Near-Death Experience when he was practically blown into two parts, in Viet Nam. As part of his experience, he recounted how he came to a river -- and there across the river was his friend (I think named John) who had been killed a few weeks earlier. Not only was John no longer severely damaged in the head as he had been when he died, but he was clean and happy and glowing. He shouted "Come on Across -- be with me! You will be happy and you will learn so much!". So he started across the river and as he went across, he started to know things. He said that he suddenly knew why certain things happened in the past and about certain things that would happen in the future. He knew why there were illnesses and diseases and he knew how to cure some of them and he even knew when some of the cures would be discovered. This was all flooding into his mind and he got smarter.

Of course, upon his return, this was a memory but he lost the details. (booo!)

I was never smarter than I am now. But I expect to be much smarter and wiser and a better thinker in the Resurrection. I almost want to call it a "Restoration", the way a person who lost an arm will have that arm restored. But actually I think it is something more than mere restoration. I think it is restoration and augmentation. And in part, it will be possible because we lived this life.

Anyway, I don't think I would say that I will be "cured" of being stupid, but I don't believe I will be as bad as I am now.

And being stupid is not my only mental or emotional problem. I hope and believe that they will all be lifted and improved.

So, I sort of like the way you say "rid" of it in the next. I think "rid" and improved are both in the plan. If not, I know that I will have to be given a pep talk.

Edited July 19, 2012 by CASteinman

[altersteve]

Depends on what you mean by that and whether or not homosexuality is inborn or a disease.

Are those the only two choices? If homosexuality isn't something one is born with, then it's a "disease"? Come on, BC. There's not a "gay virus" that goes around infecting people.

[CASteinman]

I would really love to know the numbers of heterosexuals who believe they will not have the opportunity to marry in this life in the Church in comparison to the number of homosexuals.

I have a close relative in the Church who is now rather older and never married. And this may be wise.

I have two friends in the Church who are married now. This was unwise. They are both candidates for marriage in the eternal worlds but not here, not at this time. Its not that they are not good for each other -- they are simply unsuited. The degree that this is true is so profound that if I told you 1/10th of the story, you would know immediately the severity of the problems.

Finally, I know one woman who was, in my mind, one of the most wonderful, beautiful and delightful people I ever met. She never got married despite being vivacious as well as humble and caring. She is now approaching 70 I think.

In short, there are such people in the Church. Probably the ranks of such people include many who should have been married but somehow it did not happen. And there are some who got married and should not have. It may balance. But there are always some for whom it just was never going to be right.

[Robert F. Smith]

I am not gay so I would never presume to speak authoritatively on this issue, but there is an overriding principle that, just because something is natural in innate, that does not make it right. We all act on inclinations that, to us, are perfectly natural.

If we assume that homosexuality is one of those things that is natural but not right, there are an awful lot of other conditions that would be far worse. I would rather be an active mormon gay man in North America than a women in Afghanistan or any other middle eastern country; or a heterosexual with a terminal illness at age 4. I suspect that if an otherwise well adjusted gay man (not to say that gay men are not well adjusted, but if all things being equal) saw my personal struggles, he would gladly take up his cross and carry on. There are heterosexual women in my ward who have been single all their life and have no prospect of having a loving relationship. I know several heterosexual men who are attracted to women but, due to personality or medical disorders, they will never have companion.

There are countless trials that are placed upon us, our job is to endure and learn from them to become stronger and not to judge others because they sin differently than us.

Very well said.

[Calm]

The way I view things, I don't think the word "cure" is the right word... either in this life or in the next.....

Anyway, I don't think I would say that I will be "cured" of being stupid, but I don't believe I will be as bad as I am now.

And being stupid is not my only mental or emotional problem. I hope and believe that they will all be lifted and improved.

So, I sort of like the way you say "rid" of it in the next. I think "rid" and improved are both in the plan. If not, I know that I will have to be given a pep talk.

We talk of eternal progression. The idea is absolutely delightful to me. I get to look forward to new things in my life, in myself. I really like that idea.

I don't think I ever liked tomatoes in a previous life form, not even spiritual tomatoes. I hated them as a youth and young adult and then overtime having experienced them in new ways, I've grown quite fond of them (still don't like them in salads, but I love eating some just by themselves...go figure that one out). I look forward to expanding my enjoyment of many things as I get to know them in new ways (don't think I will ever like country music though). I don't see enjoyment as having to be limited to mere pleasure even of such little things as favourite foods, but rather it can be an experience that is intellectual, emotional and physical all at once and can be spiritual as well in its higher manifestations, a connection with God's other creations as well as creations of my fellow beings.

I realize that this type of enjoyment is on a whole different level than the joy of being with a loved partner in a marriage relationship. I would say this is the highest form of enjoyment besides the joy one can receive through one's relationship with God (which is what allows us to enjoy the marriage relationship to its highest potential). I am not trying to trivialize the confusion and pain that someone who does not currently feel attracted to anyone of the opposite sex nor can even at this time imagine themselves being attracted or even wanting to be attracted. I am only saying I think we at times limit ourselves too much because of what we care about right now or are capable of doing now thinking such are too fundamental to the self to ever change. I don't think we know ourselves that well yet to be able to make that prediction.

Edited July 19, 2012 by calmoriah