Is Being Gay A Sin? Does It Need Amelioration?

[Jaybear]

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

And that reason is ....? Gays and lesbians can't be trusted around children?

Or would you be okay with a lesbian boy scout leader and a gay girl scout leader?

And ... what about the scouts, not the leaders. Do you not trust gay boys to be around gay boys.

[Lightbearer]

Homosexuality is a perversion, it is against nature and is a sin. I believe it is the result of living in a fallen corrupt world, a thorn in the flesh of some who are afflicted with this abberation. I do not know the cause of these SS attractions, but it is not normal. It is something that can and should be overcome and we should not give it a stamp of legitimatcy. It may be a deformity (although I doubt anyone is really "born that way" if so then it is a result of the fall of man.) or it may be an aquired addiction perhaps stemming from some trauma in childhood. But one thing I know is that the actions are a vile sin, and should never be just "accepted" as "the way I am". I realize this will be considered insensitive and not "politically correct" but this is my opinion. Having said that, yes I believe we should love and help those so afflicted, we should offer hope to all who struggle with such feelings. God is never going to change the Church's stance on this immorality, there will never be same-sex sealings (as husband and wife) so it is an abomination to hold out any such false and vain and foolish notions. Those who pull out the plural marriage card (OD 1) or the race card (OD 2) as examples of how God may change His mind on this idea are being deluded. These are not the same thing, it was never a sin to engage in plural marriage (if God commanded it) nor is being a race who was denied the priesthood for a time a sin either. The issue of Same Sex marriage is not even in the same ball park. The Lord has already declared His word on the subject. The idea of Homosexual relationships is not the same thing as Heterosexual relationships. The attraction of males for females and females for males is a normal natural response, homosexual attraction is not. When we lived before this life we all had gender, and it was not transgender. Male and female were a distinct seperation, there was no "third gender" anything like that has come about in the this fallen world. While SSA may not be in and of itself a sin, yet there natural sequence of such desires is in the commission of sin. So I believe self-identification of someone as being "gay" is wrong, because our thoughts lead to actions. So if one is trying to overcome this temptation then they need to reject this false idea. I realize this may offend some of you, for this I am sorry, but as they say "somebody has to say it." I offer the Proclamation on the Family as my reference:

(The Family: A Proclamation to the World,” Liahona, Oct 1998, 24)

"We, the First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, solemnly proclaim that marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God and that the family is central to the Creator’s plan for the eternal destiny of His children.

All human beings—male and female—are created in the image of God. Each is a beloved spirit son or daughter of heavenly parents, and, as such, each has a divine nature and destiny. Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose.

In the premortal realm, spirit sons and daughters knew and worshiped God as their Eternal Father and accepted His plan by which His children could obtain a physical body and gain earthly experience to progress toward perfection and ultimately realize his or her divine destiny as an heir of eternal life. The divine plan of happiness enables family relationships to be perpetuated beyond the grave. Sacred ordinances and covenants available in holy temples make it possible for individuals to return to the presence of God and for families to be united eternally.

The first commandment that God gave to Adam and Eve pertained to their potential for parenthood as husband and wife. We declare that God’s commandment for His children to multiply and replenish the earth remains in force. We further declare that God has commanded that the sacred powers of procreation are to be employed only between man and woman, lawfully wedded as husband and wife.

We declare the means by which mortal life is created to be divinely appointed. We affirm the sanctity of life and of its importance in God’s eternal plan.

Husband and wife have a solemn responsibility to love and care for each other and for their children. “Children are an heritage of the Lord” (Psalms 127:3). Parents have a sacred duty to rear their children in love and righteousness, to provide for their physical and spiritual needs, to teach them to love and serve one another, to observe the commandments of God and to be law-abiding citizens wherever they live. Husbands and wives—mothers and fathers—will be held accountable before God for the discharge of these obligations.

The family is ordained of God. Marriage between man and woman is essential to His eternal plan. Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity. Happiness in family life is most likely to be achieved when founded upon the teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ. Successful marriages and families are established and maintained on principles of faith, prayer, repentance, forgiveness, respect, love, compassion, work, and wholesome recreational activities. By divine design, fathers are to preside over their families in love and righteousness and are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families. Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children. In these sacred responsibilities, fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners. Disability, death, or other circumstances may necessitate individual adaptation. Extended families should lend support when needed.

We warn that individuals who violate covenants of chastity, who abuse spouse or offspring, or who fail to fulfill family responsibilities will one day stand accountable before God. Further, we warn that the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets.

We call upon responsible citizens and officers of government everywhere to promote those measures designed to maintain and strengthen the family as the fundamental unit of society.

(This proclamation was read by President Gordon B. Hinckley as part of his message at the General Relief Society Meeting held September 23, 1995, in Salt Lake City, Utah.)

[CV75]

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.

But I wouldn’t use the same reasoning for the Church. The two organizations have different missions and messages (the Church’s are much broader and inclusive).

I do believe that as far as adult interaction with youth goes, a Church leader would tend to take a conservative stance on calling individual “homosexuals ... who are celibate ... (ooooh!)” to work closely with young men if doing so would create a pro-gay atmosphere and by extension facilitate acceptance of taboo behavior. Gay young men who are celibate of course enjoy full support in their priesthood and quorum activities where a gay scout who is celibate cannot remain a scout. This is because the Church has many other ancillary supports to its position on marriage, family, morality, etc. The BSA only has the boy-centric activities and so has to be more conservative.

I think it is very narrow-minded to suppose that one set of reasoning applies to all conditions touching the same subject regardless of context.

Edited July 19, 2012 by CV75

[Jaybear]

But I wouldn’t use the same reasoning for the Church. The two organizations have different missions and messages (the Church’s are much broader and inclusive).

I do believe that as far as adult interaction with youth goes, a Church leader would tend to take a conservative stance on calling individual “homosexuals ... who are celibate ... (ooooh!)” to work closely with young men if doing so would create a pro-gay atmosphere and by extension facilitate acceptance of taboo behavior. Gay young men who are celibate of course enjoy full support in their priesthood and quorum activities where a gay scout who is celibate cannot remain a scout. This is because the Church has many other ancillary supports to its position on marriage, family, morality, etc. The BSA only has the boy-centric activities and so has to be more conservative.

I think it is very narrow-minded to suppose that one set of reasoning applies to all conditions touching the same subject regardless of context.

Well said.

[Bernard Gui]

And that reason is ....? Gays and lesbians can't be trusted around children?

Or would you be okay with a lesbian boy scout leader and a gay girl scout leader?

And ... what about the scouts, not the leaders. Do you not trust gay boys to be around gay boys.

You asked for my opinion; I gave it. Now you want to argue about it.

Bernard

[CV75]

Well said.

I’m glad you understand! Now we can get into the quagmire of Church-sponsored BSA units, where the Church with its broader mission sponsors a group with a less-inclusive mission. I think the Church fosters the greater good with the lesser evil on this point, much as it does when local leaders lend their church buildings to other faiths to use for meetings and celebrations where coffee may be served or Christ not recognized as deity.

A gay scout in a Church-sponsored troop enjoys the protection of his priesthood and membership in his quorum, of which the BSA is subordinate as an activity branch of the quorum. And so the conflict over that policy is resolved or at least the exception is excused.

A gay scout leader in the same troop, however, would not enjoy the same level of protection: a) he is not a quorum member; b) he is in a position of power and influence over his charges and so falls under the specific (subordinate) program’s standards--checks and balances; c) perhaps in deference to appearances this is an area of compromise that adult members accept for the sake of the two organizations continuing to benefit from the best each has to offer; d) in consideration of the local church leader’s judgment of the individual’s effect on promoting a pro-gay atmosphere.

[happy]

Seems to me the best action in any form is for the LDS Church to simply stop using the BSA for their youth programs. Then we don't have to be concerned with what they do.

[wenglund]

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?

Not that it is any of your business, and not that you have the capacity to grasp my point (particularly since I already spelled it out pretty clearly), the "cost" I mentioned wasn't just in relation to BSA as an organization, but to the boys within that organization as well.

The bad things that could happen with an openly gay teen in the company of other teen boys is not all that different, morally speaking, from the bad things that could happen with teen girls in the company of teen boys, especially during over-night or week-long activities where they are sleeping in tents or cabins with each other. Obviously.

I don't know that it is more likely to happen if the boy is openly gay--except that teens who are openly gay tend to be those more aware and sure and comfortable with their orientation and thus more prone to act on their orientation--this makes sense since, given that there is still somewhat of a social taboo or stigma against homosexuality (rightly so), open gayness stands in defiance thereof, and to an extent stands in open rebellion of those social morays.

However, my point isn't about whether it is more likely to happen with openly gay teens vs. those in the closet, but rather it is about authorities wisely taking actions with the intent to limit risk, which actions can only reasonably be taken in cases where the risks are known. If the authorities known that a teen is gay, then they know of the risk, and can then take steps to limit the risk--hence the policy. If a teen isn't fully aware of his sexual orientation and doesn't say, or if the teen is in the "closet," then the risk isn't known to the authorities, and thus they can't rightly be expected to take steps to limit the un-kown risk. Again, obviously.

Consider also the safety of the openly gay teen in the company of other teen boys who are inclined to press for conformity--peer pressure seems to be a staple among teens, and the risk for things to get out of hand. The policy banning openly gay teens from the BSA is, in some respects, for the protection of the openly gay teens.

There are other wise reasons that could be offered. But, this should suffice for the reasonably minded.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[CV75]

Seems to me the best action in any form is for the LDS Church to simply stop using the BSA for their youth programs. Then we don't have to be concerned with what they do.

That may be; in the meantime, enjoy the ambiguity! I remember this coming up around 2001 when soemthing was going on with the BSA stance on gay memebrship, and many speculated this is why the Church came up with its Duty to God program at that time, but the Church asserted its commitment. I'm not sure how many other organizations the Church has as close a relationship with, but it does seem to be a good vehicle for integrating with communities and cultures on something other than a strictly denominational and emergency basis throughout the world.

[Jaybear]

You asked for my opinion; I gave it. Now you want to argue about it.

Bernard

I think you are confusing followup questions with arguments. Take a closer look.

You said "for the same reason" but never said what that reason was, and whether it applied to scout as well as leaders.

[Damien the Leper]

Why is this discussion even continuing? The General Authorities of the Church have established that homosexuality is NOT a sin but indulging in the carnal desires therein are. There doesn't seem to be any splitting of hairs on this one. What ever part of one's ego that is needing gratification through creating some sort of gray are is disappointing and agonizingly torturous. What more can we say on this thread that has not been said on countless threads before this one?

[Robert F. Smith]

vehemence is a specialized form of anger, it initiates based upon the same principles as all forms of anger.

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.

Invariably, children and family are the best Geiger counters for detecting hidden angst.

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

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.

we are trying to be obedient and return to God, however , we overlook the simple things that enable that to take place

it was to do what God said would truly ease the anxiety.

There are three ways to fix all of these types of problems.

love the peace that is on the other side.

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.

appreciate the peace that comes from it

It’s just so much easier than carrying the burden.

second is simply to forgive.

forgive others their trespass against me. It is a very simple rule - to receive forgiveness, I must forgive.

Under the forgiveness banner comes self forgiveness. You can’t receive forgiveness, if you don’t forgive yourself.

third is judgment.

Judging others unrighteously is a cause and effect equation.

the three things that I have found bring peace. They all hinge on believing Christ

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

Excellent guidelines, Sam. Evergreen and NorthStar could incorporate them into their program without embarrassment, but they apply to all of us, all the time.

[SamIam]

Excellent guidelines, Sam. Evergreen and NorthStar could incorporate them into their program without embarrassment, but they apply to all of us, all the time.

Precisely, while I realize there is nothing new in what I said, it is because my experience has never showed much in the way of alternatives. I posted those thoughts not because they are new but in the hope that saying something a little different way might make some sense to someone …somewhere over the rainbow…

[Robert F. Smith]

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.

Horse-hockey? Or soylent green? It all starts with good intentions and beneficial reasons. I love science and believe that genetic engineering has great potential for good.

But we already live in a world in which people use sonograms to determine gender and whether to abort the fetus on that basis (in India and China this has led to millions of men who will never marry, since girl babies are not desired). Similar procedures can be applied to determine disease or malformation in a fetus. The selection process continues from there, using amniocentesis to determine genetics, etc., the limits only determined by technology, one's pocketbook, and moral - ethical concerns.

[ShawFanX]

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?

It probably would have been better if you had used the non-politically correct (i.e., non-ideologically loaded) term "same-sex attraction" instead of the euphemistic "gay" to describe your subject, because "gay' implies not only "sexual orientation" or ideations, but an accepted and crafted identity (or sub-identity) within one's own mind and within the homosexual subculture, as well as a general philosophical perspective from within a "gay" framework.

Dallin Oaks, in his now famous talk on the subject, made clear that same-sex attraction, in and of itself, is not necessarily a sin, at least in its fundamental form. He was equally adamant that behavior is another matter entirely, and that no Latter day Saint should ever be found affirming or supporting the crafting or acceptance of a gay identity in any of God's children, or encouraging any sense that homosexual orientation is an innate aspect of the eternal spirit or genetically predetermined.

Edited July 19, 2012 by ShawFanX

[ShawFanX]

This is ridiculous. What is makes this ridiculous is the assumption that someone has possibly made a conscious choice to live with 'sinful' attraction.

Countless people do this everyday. This is a banality, in my view.

[CV75]

Why is this discussion even continuing? The General Authorities of the Church have established that homosexuality is NOT a sin but indulging in the carnal desires therein are. There doesn't seem to be any splitting of hairs on this one. What ever part of one's ego that is needing gratification through creating some sort of gray are is disappointing and agonizingly torturous. What more can we say on this thread that has not been said on countless threads before this one?

Unfortunately our society has reached a level of sophistication where staying alive isn't the most important source of gratitude, but fulfilling non-procreative sexual desire is. That is why the subject is imbedded in virtually every economic and political message the popular media delivers.

Edited July 20, 2012 by CV75

[Damien the Leper]

Countless people do this everyday. This is a banality, in my view.

I don't think so. I believe the attraction was always there but was never truly recognized...which is a good thing. But these persons screw it up for themselves when they make a conscious choice to sin.

[Damien the Leper]

Unfortunately our society has reached a level of sophistication where staying alive isn't the most important source of gratitude, but fulfilling non-procreative sexual desire is. That is why the subject is imbedded in virtually every economic and political message the popular media delivers.

Sounds like a rationalized avenue by which sin is legitimized.

[Mudcat]

Mudcat,

Robert wasn't questioning whether the sexual behavior is a sin. He is asking if BEING gay or having SSA is a sin?

Oh I see. My mistake.

I suppose it depends on if Christ was being serious about sinning in your heart.

I think he was. So yes.

[Robert F. Smith]

It probably would have been better if you had used the non-politically correct (i.e., non-ideologically loaded) term "same-sex attraction" instead of the euphemistic "gay" to describe your subject, because "gay' implies not only "sexual orientation" or ideations, but an accepted and crafted identity (or sub-identity) within one's own mind and within the homosexual subculture, as well as a general philosophical perspective from within a "gay" framework.

There is much to what you say, Loran, and I am old enough to recall when "gay" had no homosexual overtones at all, so my understanding of the semantics takes in a lot more territory than you imagine. However, I also think that it is important to be sensitive and kind to members of a group which feels oppressed. Moreover, I don't think that being confrontational or blaming the victim is a positive policy, and probably not the approach taken by Evergreen International or the NorthStar Community.

I am interested in hearing about successful ways of dealing with the gay dilemma without pandering to blatant lust, just as I would be in other areas of therapy for any sort of addiction. Perhaps you have some helpful ideas along those lines?

Dallin Oaks, in his now famous talk on the subject, made clear that same-sex attraction, in and of itself, is not necessarily a sin, at least in its fundamental form. He was equally adamant that behavior is another matter entirely, and that no Latter day Saint should ever be found affirming or supporting the crafting or acceptance of a gay identity in any of God's children, or encouraging any sense that homosexual orientation is an innate aspect of the eternal spirit or genetically predetermined.

Pres Spencer Kimball said that there are "relatively few accidents of nature" (Ensign, Nov 1974, p. 8 ), thus admitting that such do occur.

Although I have spent a good deal of time over the years reading the literature, I don't know whether gender identity or SSA is innate, learned, or a real choice for those seeking a good time (perhaps all three are true for different people), and I am not sure that making it a matter of dogma is wise (for either proponents or opponents).

I always ask myself the same question the disciples asked of Jesus: "Master, who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind? Jesus answered, Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents: but that the works of God should be made manifest in him." John 9:2-3

Jesus then proceeded to heal that blind man:

We can of course deny any genetic defect, or any sort of in-utero etiology for such problems, even though to do so is to deny science. Jesus affirmed that a man could be born blind and that it was not the fault of the parents. Such defects may simply be part of the natural order of things, and we must learn how to deal with such challenges. It is likewise doubtful that the father of the Prodigal Son had done a bad job of raising that son, who of his own volition chose to be a wastrel.

The real question is, Can we find ways to help people who find themselves in such challenging situations? And are we going to do it honestly?

Edited July 20, 2012 by Robert F. Smith

[wenglund]

Oh I see. My mistake.

I suppose it depends on if Christ was being serious about sinning in your heart.

I think he was. So yes.

I thought of the same passage. However, I think there is an important difference between "lusting after" and being "sexually attracted," the former being a sin of the heart whereas the latter is not, otherwise heterosexuality would, itself, be a sin of the heart.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Damien the Leper]

Oh I see. My mistake.

I suppose it depends on if Christ was being serious about sinning in your heart.

I think he was. So yes.

By that reasoning, the 'sinning in your heart' also applies to heterosexuals. Perhaps not from the perspective of being attracted to someone but from the perspective of lust.

[Damien the Leper]

I thought of the same passage. However, I think there is an important difference between "lusting after" and being "sexually attracted," the former being a sin of the heart whereas the latter is not, otherwise heterosexuality would, itself, be a sin of the heart.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

You beat me to it...dang you Wade!

[halconero]

I thought of the same passage. However, I think there is an important difference between "lusting after" and being "sexually attracted," the former being a sin of the heart whereas the latter is not, otherwise heterosexuality would, itself, be a sin of the heart.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Agreed. Sexual attraction is a good, useful thing. It is appropriate within marriage, and yes, it is appropriate even before marriage if bridled carefully. Although I can't speak out of experience, I doubt that sexual attraction just appears out of nowhere on the wedding night.

Attraction to one's own gender is not in and of itself a sin. Focusing on and unbridling (bridle, such a great word. Imagine a rampaging horse running around destroying fencing, the pasture and itself) that attraction is sin.