Is Being Gay A Sin? Does It Need Amelioration?

[CASteinman]

First, in actuality I think I misinterpreted your posts. My apologies.

Next, you are the second person today, my mother being the first, to recognize my 'vehemence' but she went a step further to claim that her son (me) had turned into a "self-loathing bigot" (her words exactly).

Out of curiosity, what is it about my 'vehemence' that seems to be intriguing or possibly unsettling?

You do not come across to me as vehement nor as self loathing. And, although you like to argue, I am not sure I would say that you come across as a bigot either.

I would not accept those labels too quickly. My personal experience tells me that labels -- either intended positively or negatively -- if accepted too strongly, can be like handcuffs. I encourage you to be confident enough to allow them to come and then go. Don't hang on to them -- except for amusement.

[SamIam]

First, in actuality I think I misinterpreted your posts. My apologies.

Next, you are the second person today, my mother being the first, to recognize my 'vehemence' but she went a step further to claim that her son (me) had turned into a "self-loathing bigot" (her words exactly).

Out of curiosity, what is it about my 'vehemence' that seems to be intriguing or possibly unsettling?

It will perhaps seem presumptuous for me to state that I understand almost precisely what you are going through. Not because I have experienced perhaps to the degree you mother is describing but because of my interactions with others that have. I have seen miracles but this forum approach I consider a challenge to overcome for the barricades around the interpersonal communications that really help us to reach out to each other. I would like to consider upon this for the night until I can find a means of communicating the message. It is not that my message will be any different for the points that it covers but hopefully the method of illustration may somewhat bridge the barrier of online communications.

I would like you to think upon one thing. When I write on this board much of the time, I am writing from the heart of my experience and testimony. I realize that the online sphere is a hurry up and read it world and then kick off a reply as fast as we can. I will give much consideration to my response, I already have a couple of ideas of which way to go. However, it will be a review of much of what you know with some illustrations that come from venues different than I'm sure you ever pondered upon. I hope you will take it slow and consider the material. That is its only way it will be of worth. I should be able to get something together by tomorrow.

Edited July 19, 2012 by SamIam

[Bernard Gui]

http://www.evergreen...al.org/brad.htm

The testimonies of my friend, Brad Anderson (pseudonym). Mrs. Gui and I are the couple who picked him up near the Tetons.

Actually, we didn't pick him up. We had been to Yellowstone and were returning to Pleasant Grove. I stopped for gas in a little town,

and while we were waiting, he ran up and jumped into our back seat. Crying, he asked if we would take him to the nearest

airport. He was hitch hiking West from Michigan after being graduated from high school. We were somewhat taken aback and

we never ever picked up hitch hikers, especially in Wyoming!

He had been picked up by a man who would not let him exit the car, and had jumped out the door as they slowed down in the town, running

to the first person he saw after jumping from the car. We were moved by his story, so we took him to Pleasant Grove to stay with us, and later took him to Helaman Halls and introduced him to the guys there who attended our ward. He stayed there a few days and then we took him to the SLC airport and

he flew home. The rest of his incredible story is told in his two testimonies given at Evergreen Conferences. Tragically, today he is close

to death from AIDS contracted during some difficult times in his life after serving a mission. He has been a member of his bishopric and

continues faithful even approaching death, and he is happily anticipating release from this life of sorrows into the glory he expects in the next.

The rest of his story is from my prospective. Mrs. Gui and I were young marrieds. I was working on my MA in music and living in Pleasant

Grove. We hadn't had a real honeymoon, having been married at Christmas time, so we decided to go up to Yellowstone for our special

trip. We desired to do some missionary work. We put a Book of Mormon on our dashboard and prayed that during the trip we would

find someone who would welcome receiving it. During the trip, there were a number of people that noticed us, but we did not feel prompted

to hand it to them. On the way home we were somewhat disappointed and felt we had failed in our commitment.

It was then that Brad jumped into our car, and on the drive back to Pleasant Grove it became very obvious that he was the one the

book was meant for.

Later he contacted us and said he had joined the Church and was going to serve a mission in Europe. We have been in contact with

him over the years, but not during his darker times. If he gives permission, I might share his most recent letter. It is moving beyond

description.

Bernard

Edited July 19, 2012 by Bernard Gui

[CV75]

california boy, on 18 July 2012, said:

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

My question is whether we can find ways to ameliorate the suffering without accepting the symptoms as normative?

The symptoms of suffereing are all normative regardles of one's sexual orientation: "how do you deal with being [fill in the blank] all your life?"

We are all "something" that causes us to suffer, whether justly or not. Where this condition afflcits us all, it is normative. The suffering is ameliorated through faith, repentance and covenant-keeping of the one suffering and the one(s) observing the suffering, and developing a Christ-like character. This is normative, also (especially among a peculiar people!).

[Mansquatch]

I would agree, but would also point out that feeling homosexual attraction is a behaviour and even if the feelings are not physically or mentally acted upon, some may see it as enough of a behaviour to count as an attribute, much like the feelings of being shy or optomistic may not be readily apparent in external behaviour, but would still be seen as an attribute by an individual who knows how s/he feels or at least interprets her/his feelings this way.

I hear you, but I really like clarity in language and definitions. They are two definitely distinct things, and I say they call for two different words. That is essential to answering the question "Is Being Gay a Sin?" According to my definition the answer is "yes". But with the completely separate action of only being tried or tempted by such added to the word, the answer then becomes a clear "no". Then again, using the correct and original definition of the word, being gay could never be considered a sin by anyone.

[Jaybear]

My question: Do you disagree with the policy of the BSA, supported by the LDS Church which bans gays from scouting, even celibate gays?

Your response.

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

So, yes I did notice that did not actually answer the question.

[Jaybear]

Correction: It bans OPENLY gay youth and leaders.

You would be wrong. The ban extends to "known or avowed" homosexuals. If it became "known" to the bishop that someone is "struggling with same sex attraction", even though he was not openly gay, he would not be allowed to participate in scouting.

Not that this is any of your business,

If by that you mean I am not gay, that is true. However, I like to think that in this country people should not only be free, but have a civic obligation to speak out against this sort of rank bigotry.

I think they made a wise decision given what is at stake, but even more so given how much they have been and still are under assault by gay advocates.

I not only disagree, but I predict that in 20 years, they will have reversed the decision, and formally apologized for promulgating bigotry and discrimination against homosexuals.

[mrmandias]

This is why no one takes Elder Packer's talk "To The One" as seriously any longer because it is an older paradigm of thought.

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.

This is dangerous ground to tread on, so hedge what I'm saying. But I think 'transcend' might be a better term than 'get rid of.' I suspect that you will be abled to fully enter the union of Man and Woman, but that also your experience as a homosexual man has the seeds of some coming glory in it that you will contribute to the sociality of the Gods.

[happy]

I not only disagree, but I predict that in 20 years, they will have reversed the decision, and formally apologized for promulgating bigotry and discrimination against homosexuals.

Is it wrong to be bigoted or discriminatory against a behavior? Can a group disagree with a person's moral choices and still be honorable?

[Jaybear]

Is it wrong to be bigoted or discriminatory against a behavior? Can a group disagree with a person's moral choices and still be honorable?

That is not germane to the issue here. The BSA ban is based on orientation, not behavior.

But to answer your question, yes it can be wrong to be bigoted or discriminatory against a behavior. If your boss fired you, because you choose to join or leave the LDS church, I think that would bigoted, unless your job performance and faith were inextricably tied.

[ERayR]

My question: Do you disagree with the policy of the BSA, supported by the LDS Church which bans gays from scouting, even celibate gays?

Your response.

So, yes I did notice that did not actually answer the question.

The BSA is doing what they think necessary to prevent multimillion dollar liabilities when something goes wrong and at the same time protecting the boys.

[SamIam]

First, in actuality I think I misinterpreted your posts. My apologies.

Next, you are the second person today, my mother being the first, to recognize my 'vehemence' but she went a step further to claim that her son (me) had turned into a "self-loathing bigot" (her words exactly).

Out of curiosity, what is it about my 'vehemence' that seems to be intriguing or possibly unsettling?

I've decided I'll just keep it to the point which is very difficult for me. I have almost an imperative to treat a subject thoroughly in order to cover all of the bases. I’ll elaborate however, on this in my other response to Robert and together the two posts will treat one aspect of the issue.

You ask about vehemence and why it is intriguing. I am going to treat it by reducing it to another aspect of anger – although vehemence is a specialized form of anger, it initiates based upon the same principles as all forms of anger.

I am a very introspective person. In its way, it is a talent that I realize not everyone naturally possesses but I think it is one that a sincere person can acquire. Years ago, I realized that I do not like to feel upheaval inside me. I do not like the sense of something is not right. I grew to understand this based on one particular process I would analyze when I noted the “unsettledness” creeping in.

It always would catch my attention that if I came home from work and was not settled inside that it would manifest itself when one of my children or my wife might do some very minor thing of absolute insignificance and I might snap back or get terse or tense or whatever. Our busy days go too fast sometimes for us to note in the time of occurrence what gets tucked away that distresses us. Invariably, children and family are the best Geiger counters for detecting hidden angst.

I have always desired to be at peace and to feel peace inside me all of the time. I developed a habit of recognizing that when my response to one of the trivial aspects of life exceeded the level of response justified by the event to which I was responding that it had to be drawing upon a different unnegotiated source of angst that I had failed to deal with properly. In my post to you I reflected upon this principle when I stated:

Brock (SAMIAM) stated:

In other words the level of your anxiety is clearly based upon conditions not directly related to the contents of my one or two posts and appears to be an out pouring of stored up prior emotions.

In other words what you were responding with was not equal to what I was saying in my post. Thinking about you the way I think about me, this is intriguing, because to me it states that you are not responding to me so much as something else is driving your emotional state of mind relative to this subject.

When I see myself respond like this to others, the moment I detect an ounce of anger I wrap up the situation as best as possible and then I go off for a moment and begin to dissect my day to determine what is the power source that is being tapped that fueled the extra energy into the earlier event. I can always find it and then I fix it. There are little things that fix quite readily with just the recognition, there are big things that are the baggage of life that get triggered by others from time to time that require so much more. However, I find the point and I start fixing it.

Your response to me and a few others indicates that yours is the unresolved baggage of life kind of stuff. It may be related to the topic at hand or most likely it is much deeper but attaches itself to this concept readily.

More interaction on a personal level would reveal specifics but frankly it really doesn’t matter based on my experience with myself.

We, who are striving, frequently express that we are trying to be obedient and return to God, however , we overlook the simple things that enable that to take place, perhaps out of personal weakness, or perhaps because like Naaman we don’t think simple things can be the solution to huge problems. Frankly, early on for myself I realized I was a liar. God said what to do to make things better and I didn’t do them preferring to look for someone to take it out on or blame or avoid acknowledging that the solution was only achieved if I took responsibility for acting according to what I was told to do. So I quit lying to myself. It was either choose to eat, drink and be merry and opt for moments to mask the pain or it was to do what God said would truly ease the anxiety.

For me what I have almost universally found is there are three things that will create a state of anxiety in myself. Two of them you and I have in common I am sure. The third is really a subset of one of them but is so common that I like to observe it separately to keep track of it.

The first thing is when I realize I have done something wrong. Wrong changes over time and if you have developed a habit of correcting it lesser and lesser things trigger the “I’ve done something wrong” sense in me. However, I fix it. There are three ways to fix all of these types of problems. They are the simple things that address big issues and little issues alike. However, they always work.

The problem is people look at them as if they are the most difficult thing in the world to accomplish but remember my personal goal is to always be at peace so for me I’m grateful for a way to get back to a state of peace even when I have to work at it to get there. I do not like feeling out of sorts… ever.

Instead of focusing on the immediate difficulty of the task, I have grown to love the peace that is on the other side. I focus on that.

So the first of the things is I repent. I figure out if I need to apologize, or need to recompense someone, or simply ask for forgiveness but I do it. When I began this process years ago, it started with going to my bishop. I didn’t go on my mission until I was 24. The doorway to Thailand had my bishop’s name on it. So I went through it.

Sometimes I think people look at repentance like it is such a horrible burden. I have come to appreciate the peace that comes from it so much that I have to acknowledge that I may be guilty of selfishly using it as a means to find the peace I crave. It’s just so much easier than carrying the burden.

The second thing is also simple in concept, easy for me usually, very difficult for others sometimes. It is simply to forgive. Forgive is a two edged sword in its way. Once again on this point it became clear to me that it defined me as a liar in my first request of asking for forgiveness for my sins, if I was not willing to forgive others their trespass against me. It is a very simple rule - to receive forgiveness, I must forgive. Ask for forgiveness and hold out extending it and you cannot have forgiveness. You cannot be healed of the pain in your heart, you cannot be rid of the anxiety of your own transgressions, and you cannot be at peace. I did not like the angst so I learned to forgive – readily.

Under the forgiveness banner comes self forgiveness. You can’t receive forgiveness, if you don’t forgive yourself. It is mockery to ask Christ to forgive you and expect that he will, if you won’t. It also is a faithless act. When he states that he has paid the price and all we need to do is to repent and forgive to receive it, failing to forgive ourselves is rather like saying to Christ, “I don’t believe what you say.” That just won’t work.

The third one, which I struggle with from time to time is judgment. Judging is not wrong in and of itself. We are commanded to judge. The right to judge between good and evil is what the whole battle in heaven was over. That is the rub with judgment, we must be engaged in the process but it is very easy to cross a line and not judge properly. Judging others unrighteously is a cause and effect equation. Judge not (unrighteously) lest ye be judged. So if I presume to judge another incorrectly then it is kind of like the childhood retort “don’t point at me because there are three fingers pointing back at you” scenario. Judgment is actually an extension of forgiveness. Sometimes we have difficulty not forgiving because we want to hold onto our judgment of another individual. However, our actions to the Lord state that we think we have the right to judge others and we invite him to judge us. Luke states it pretty clear – If we don’t judge we won’t be judged. Of course to be able to do this means a person has been very diligent in growing in the ways that permit man to overcome the natural tendencies.

This is it. I have outlined the three things that I have found bring peace. They all hinge on believing Christ and are not very complex. They do work. They are the only things that work as far as I can tell. If counselors and confidents, friends and family get us to this point then they are of value but peace only comes upon these principles. I know you have heard these before and they are not what I originally planned on writing. However, when I distill it down this is it - very simple, not easy but oh so worth it – just for our own peace of mind.

Vehemence is a deep unresolved anger that has festered and boiled to the point of blinding. All anger blinds to some degree, however, in yours and I’s exchange a preconceived perception caused you not to see the nature of my response. However, to your great credit and obvious indicator of potential you acknowledged that and we can go on from there. You may notice that the one that was freed the most was yourself. We could interact appropriately because you drew freedom and clearer vision from fixing your perspective.

In the big scheme of things anger has been very valuable to me. Whenever it shows, I know Satan is near and it is the best first alert system I know of. It’s like a fire alarm that goes off at the first sign of smoke. Take yours and start using it for an alert system. When it goes off, find what is triggering it and take one of the three steps I have outlined. It does take time, I have some things that I have worked on for years but they are always improving. It is very remarkable to me to realize that the Lord has construed it so that everything that we need to do is precisely within our power and will not resolve until we exercise our power to do so. If any of this does not make sense I have quotes and scriptures etc that will second the approach but thought to forgo them for now. Naaman was all upset when the simple solution was given to him for how to be clean of his affiction - however, he was prevailed upon by a concerned member of his entourage and he did what was told him - and it worked.

Edited July 19, 2012 by SamIam

[Jaybear]

The BSA is doing what they think necessary to prevent multimillion dollar liabilities when something goes wrong and at the same time protecting the boys.

I was not asking what "they think" I know what the BSA purports to think.

I was asking what those of you who don't consider homosexuality a sin, whether you agree with the policy, as it extent broadly to any homosexual, celibate or not.

Why is it so difficult for many of you to answer a question asking for a personal opinion?

Edited July 19, 2012 by Jaybear

[Damien the Leper]

My question: Do you disagree with the policy of the BSA, supported by the LDS Church which bans gays from scouting, even celibate gays?

Your response.

So, yes I did notice that did not actually answer the question.

To actually answer your question...Yes, I do agree with the decision.

[Damien the Leper]

Is it wrong to be bigoted or discriminatory against a behavior? Can a group disagree with a person's moral choices and still be honorable?

Not to derail...but hasn't this happened in the case of polygamy?

If one chooses to commit sexual sin the so be it. But don't expect me pretend that I don't have a problem with it or that in some way its normal.

[CV75]

My question: Do you disagree with the policy of the BSA, supported by the LDS Church which bans gays from scouting, even celibate gays?

I agree with the policy of BSA because it is a precautionary measure. Because the subject of homosexuality is treated (almost promoted) in so openly and biased a manner by the popular media, allowing homosexuals to be members of the BSA sends the wrong message about what it really stands for.

[happy]

That is not germane to the issue here. The BSA ban is based on orientation, not behavior.

But to answer your question, yes it can be wrong to be bigoted or discriminatory against a behavior. If your boss fired you, because you choose to join or leave the LDS church, I think that would bigoted, unless your job performance and faith were inextricably tied.

But the concern is the behavior itself. That one is pre-disposed to engage in a behavior one considers against the BSA's morality. If being gay did not lead to any real behavior, I am not sure anyone would care?

[USU78]

A "brave new world" cannot be far behind . . .

Horsepucky.

If there were a gene or chemical therapy that would get rid of Aspergers, You wouldn't say that about it.

If there were a gene or chemical therapy that would get rid of Downs, You wouldn't say that about it.

If there were a gene or chemical therapy that would get rid of Addictive Inclinations, You wouldn't say that about it.

It's just because it's politically inexpedient to call SSR a dangerous and potentially destructive condition/syndrome that You say that about it.

This isn't Soma[tm], designed to keep the population fat, happy and politically unaware. This would be a beneficial therapy.

[Jaybear]

I agree with the policy of BSA because it is a precautionary measure. Because the subject of homosexuality is treated (almost promoted) in so openly and biased a manner by the popular media, allowing homosexuals to be members of the BSA sends the wrong message about what it really stands for.

By that very same reasoning, allowing homosexuals ... who are celibate ... to be members of the LDS church sends the wrong message about what it really stands for.

[wenglund]

You would be wrong. The ban extends to "known or avowed" homosexuals. If it became "known" to the bishop that someone is "struggling with same sex attraction", even though he was not openly gay, he would not be allowed to participate in scouting.

I will take the word of the BSA over yours.

If by that you mean I am not gay, that is true.

I also mean you are not involved in the BSA. In no way is it any of your business.

However, I like to think that in this country people should not only be free, but have a civic obligation to speak out against this sort of rank bigotry.

You are free to project as much as you like, even where it is entirely none of your business, just as I am free to reasonably point out that it is none of your business.

I not only disagree, but I predict that in 20 years, they will have reversed the decision, and formally apologized for promulgating bigotry and discrimination against homosexuals.

It is of little matter to me what you think and predict--not just because this isn't any of your business, but also because you carry no credibility with me (whoever it is that you are hidding behind your anonymous screen name). This is just your round-about way of denigrating the primary object of your derision (the restored gospel of Christ) and furthering the decline of civilization. It is your way of deflecting your own understandable, yet correctable, self-loathing.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

But the concern is the behavior itself. That one is pre-disposed to engage in a behavior one considers against the BSA's morality. If being gay did not lead to any real behavior, I am not sure anyone would care?

What Jaybear doesn't seem to grasp (besides this being none of his business), and perhaps never will, is that, in terms of the scouts, themselves, we are talking about young teenage boys whose frontal lobes are several years from being fully developed, who tend to lack maturity and good sense, and whose hormones are ragging regardless of their sexual attractions--which tend not to be fully defined. As such, it is wise to take precautionary measures to somewhat limit the risk of their making bad choices that could negatively (some times significantly) impact their lives. This is why, in part, that girls are not a part of the boy scouts, and this so that we don't end of with banal hormone-driven heterosexual boys sleeping in the same tent as banal hormone-driven heterosexual girls.

This same wisdom applies to banal hormone-driven openly gay boys. The potential costs outweigh benefits of scouting to openly gay boys.

Besides, we can easily guess why the gay advocates have persistently assaulted the BSA. It isn't really because of so-called discrimination--else-wise they would be even more animated about girls not being allowed in the organization. Rather, it is about "recruitment" and normalizing perversion.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited July 19, 2012 by wenglund

[Bernard Gui]

I was not asking what "they think" I know what the BSA purports to think.

I was asking what those of you who don't consider homosexuality a sin, whether you agree with the policy, as it extent broadly to any homosexual, celibate or not.

Why is it so difficult for many of you to answer a question asking for a personal opinion?

OK. I'll bite. I agree with the decision. For the same reasons I do not support men or lesbians as Girl Scout leaders or

women as Boy Scout leaders. My opinion.

Bernard

[happy]

By that very same reasoning, allowing homosexuals ... who are celibate ... to be members of the LDS church sends the wrong message about what it really stands for.

So would you support a BSA rule that allowed claimed homosexuals as long as they abstained from homosexual activity?

[BCSpace]

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.

This is ridiculous.

How so?

What is makes this ridiculous is the assumption that someone has possibly made a conscious choice to live with 'sinful' attraction. You seem to suggest that by no longer 'struggling' with SSA and leaving it all to the Lord that an individual is choosing to sin. Let me be explicitly clear: I AM NOT SINNING BECAUSE I AM RECOGNIZE MY SSA AND LEAVE ALL REMEDY UP TO THE LORD.

Never said or impied you were. Have you actually read "God Loveth His Children"?

To suggest otherwise is presumptuous. It is moreso presumptuous that you can turn SSA on/off over any space of time like a lightswitch. Furthermore, based on my personal experience and opinion that I was BORN with SSA you would seem to suggest also that I was born with sin. This is, as Selek would say, unmitigated rot.

More strawman.

You are NOT the authority on my 'sinful' attraction. I would like to know if Pres. Monson would agree with your logic.

I'm quite certain he does as he is involved in approving the cirriculum, doctrine, and procedures for homosexual repentance with which I have been directly involved with from time to time over the last 25 years.

What is evident of your position is that it lacks grace and mercy. God Loveth His Children, in all the times I've read it, has never suggested what you do.

Perhaps you would be more convincing of you could accurately repeat my position without reading between the lines what isn't there. Perhaps you could also tell us whether or not you accept LDS doctrine on the subject and perhaps what that doctrine is so we know where you are comming from. Just so you know where I'm coming from, I personally accept all LDS doctrine on the matter.

[Jaybear]

So would you support a BSA rule that allowed claimed homosexuals as long as they abstained from homosexual activity?

Nope.

What Jaybear doesn't seem to grasp (besides this being none of his business), and perhaps never will, is that, in terms of the scouts, themselves, we are talking about young teenage boys whose frontal lobes are several years from being fully developed, who tend to lack maturity and good sense, and whose hormones are ragging regardless of their sexual attractions--which tend not to be fully defined. As such, it is wise to take precautionary measures to somewhat limit the risk of their making bad choices that could negatively (some times significantly) impact their lives. This is why, in part, that girls are not a part of the boy scouts, and this so that we don't end of with banal hormone-driven heterosexual boys sleeping in the same tent as banal hormone-driven heterosexual girls.

This same wisdom applies to banal hormone-driven openly gay boys. The potential costs outweigh benefits of scouting to openly gay boys.

No, I guess I don't understand your fears. Perhaps you could be more specific. Lets say we a 13 year old scout that has come to accept that he is a homosexual. What sort of things are you imaging that this child would do, that would "cost" the boy scouts organization, and why is he more likely to do this thing, if he is out of closet, than if he were in the closet?