Is Being Gay A Sin? Does It Need Amelioration?

[KevinG]

I would find segregation of Scouts by race objectionable.

Not that is has anything to do with limiting leadership opportunities for adults who profess being openly homosexual. It doesn't.

[CV75]

I prefer to speak for myself. I said: My problem is when people use their personal moral views to justify their efforts to control the behavior of others who don't share that same moral belief.

OK. Instead of reflective listening, I'll simply ask, "Why is this so in the context of the BSA?" And in real-life situations, is it really problematic for you to deal with individuals who behave this way (and how often does this morality-based problem actually come up!)?

Now, would you mind answering my questions. I will repeat them in case you forgot? If not, let me ask you if members of the BSA executive committee believed that race mixing was immoral, and put in place a rule requiring that black and white scouts stay at separate facility, would you find that objectionable? Would you be surprised if I did?

I think you are jabbering here, where questions become statements and vice-versa. But if I can correctly decipher what you are asking, I do not find it objectionable for any organization, no matter how reprehensible I find their mission and policies to be, to have policies in alignment with their morals/values; that is what organizations and their leaders are supposed to do. If I consider the organization standing for immoral principles, I would not join it, and if in sufficient disagreemnt and if sufficiently practicable, I would fight against it and seek its demise. Is this how you think/feel toward the BSA?

[california boy]

I really don't see what the policies of the BSA has to do with the OP other than it is the activity arm for young men in the church. If you are going to talk about BSA, why don't you talk about it in relationship to being a gay member and being excluded from participating in youth activity program. That is the issue with BSA as it relates to the church. Should the church embrace a "Don't ask don't tell" policy with gay youth so a gay member can be allowed to participate in church sponsored BSA program? Do we really want our youth to not talk to the bishop about being gay? Do we really not want them participating in church activities if they are gay? If you support the BSA policies, how do you suggest the church deal with those policies? I feel these are the real questions that don't seem to have easy answers.

It is always more difficult to address the hard questions. Something that has been for the most part lacking in responses to my questions that prompted this thread. I would still like to know what members think the answers are to how the church CAN help someone who is gay in the church. What IS the church capable of doing? Why is this so difficult for members and the church to actually do? Or is it simply enough to tell a gay person to be celibate and let them flounder on their own. Yes the church tells its members to include and not reject their gay sons and daughters. But we all know that far too often gay family members are shunned. Should the bishop of a gay family member call in the family and have a talk with them about how to deal having a gay son? What should be his counsel? When the bishop is aware of parents kicking a son out of their home, should the parents be chastised for that? Or is it a family decision and none of the bishops business?

I know personally my family feels that if they invite me to any family event, reunion, even church activity, then they believe they are some how accepting the choices I have made. So their stance is, when I decide to start attending church again, then they will start including me in the family again. I realize it is a very difficult issue for them to deal with. Does the church offer any opinion on such stances? Should it? Are they encouraging me to be gay if they invite me to Christmas dinner? Should they invite my partner? Should the church have any guidelines on this issue? My family is very active in the church. I think they are waiting for the church to help them decide what the best course of action should be.

In short, I feel there are real issues that would be healthy to talk about. It would be nice if this thread got back on track rather than degenerating into opposite opinions that will never be resolved. Just my thoughts.

[Robert F. Smith]

I really don't see what the policies of the BSA has to do with the OP other than it is the activity arm for young men in the church. If you are going to talk about BSA, why don't you talk about it in relationship to being a gay member and being excluded from participating in youth activity program. That is the issue with BSA as it relates to the church. Should the church embrace a "Don't ask don't tell" policy with gay youth so a gay member can be allowed to participate in church sponsored BSA program? Do we really want our youth to not talk to the bishop about being gay? Do we really not want them participating in church activities if they are gay? If you support the BSA policies, how do you suggest the church deal with those policies? I feel these are the real questions that don't seem to have easy answers.

It is always more difficult to address the hard questions. Something that has been for the most part lacking in responses to my questions that prompted this thread. I would still like to know what members think the answers are to how the church CAN help someone who is gay in the church. What IS the church capable of doing? Why is this so difficult for members and the church to actually do? Or is it simply enough to tell a gay person to be celibate and let them flounder on their own. Yes the church tells its members to include and not reject their gay sons and daughters. But we all know that far too often gay family members are shunned. Should the bishop of a gay family member call in the family and have a talk with them about how to deal having a gay son? What should be his counsel? When the bishop is aware of parents kicking a son out of their home, should the parents be chastised for that? Or is it a family decision and none of the bishops business?

I know personally my family feels that if they invite me to any family event, reunion, even church activity, then they believe they are some how accepting the choices I have made. So their stance is, when I decide to start attending church again, then they will start including me in the family again. I realize it is a very difficult issue for them to deal with. Does the church offer any opinion on such stances? Should it? Are they encouraging me to be gay if they invite me to Christmas dinner? Should they invite my partner? Should the church have any guidelines on this issue? My family is very active in the church. I think they are waiting for the church to help them decide what the best course of action should be.

Very good questions, and you seem to have answered one of them in the affirmative: " . . . the church tells its members to include and not reject their gay sons and daughters."

Perhaps it would be wise to make an appointment with the bishop and let him know how you feel about being shunned by your parents. After all, the family is considered by the Church as the first priority, and we are not Amish. More, parents are supposed to have unconditional love for their offspring -- mothers are especially known for this trait. You'd think that the parents would realize that they and the Church have no hope of somehow regaining you if they don't show warmth and affection. Surely they could welcome you home at Xmas and Thanksgiving, or the like. Both they and you might even be surprised at how normal it all feels. Perhaps they are fearful and don't realize fully the obligations they have to you. Also, on those occasions, you might give a little by attending sacrament meeting. Many members will want to say hello and shake your hand. You strike me as articulate and intelligent enough to figure out how to manage it all without embarrassment. Being the "black sheep" of the family may not be so horrible as you imagine.

[california boy]

Very good questions, and you seem to have answered one of them in the affirmative: " . . . the church tells its members to include and not reject their gay sons and daughters."

Perhaps it would be wise to make an appointment with the bishop and let him know how you feel about being shunned by your parents. After all, the family is considered by the Church as the first priority, and we are not Amish. More, parents are supposed to have unconditional love for their offspring -- mothers are especially known for this trait. You'd think that the parents would realize that they and the Church have no hope of somehow regaining you if they don't show warmth and affection. Surely they could welcome you home at Xmas and Thanksgiving, or the like. Both they and you might even be surprised at how normal it all feels. Perhaps they are fearful and don't realize fully the obligations they have to you. Also, on those occasions, you might give a little by attending sacrament meeting. Many members will want to say hello and shake your hand. You strike me as articulate and intelligent enough to figure out how to manage it all without embarrassment. Being the "black sheep" of the family may not be so horrible as you imagine.

I sent you a personal message to answer your suggestions. I don't want this thread to be about me. I would much rather have people comment on general answers. Or maybe these are just questions that don't have answers. It is certainly easier to be contentious and self righteous about these issues on both sides.

[CV75]

I really don't see what the policies of the BSA has to do with the OP other than it is the activity arm for young men in the church. If you are going to talk about BSA, why don't you talk about it in relationship to being a gay member and being excluded from participating in youth activity program.

I tried to get into this with post #106 (beginning with posts 91 and 103), but it didn't seem to garner much interest.

[CV75]

It is always more difficult to address the hard questions. Something that has been for the most part lacking in responses to my questions that prompted this thread. I would still like to know what members think the answers are to how the church CAN help someone who is gay in the church.

I tried to get into this in post #131 and a previous similar post. It relies on a Gospel-based, individual conversion basis and not on a church organizational basis. That said, the church council systems exist to be used to address this issue according to individual need.

Edited July 21, 2012 by CV75

[california boy]

I am not sure what you are suggesting in post #131

Maybe I’ve responded to this question already in this thread. An honest way to help people deal with their struggles is to faithfully come unto Christ and fellowship them so as to encourage their attraction to Christ. The Spirit performs miracles. The solution is not always found in healing, but in dealing / managing with ones’ affliction(s) in an inspiring way.

I know this may sound too general, but people that apply the princple generally discover specific ways to help and to be helped.

It seems your solution is to tell them to go to church and that will solve all their problems? Do you really think that is a solution that is working given all of the issues I have talked about??? Or is it just a simple answer that doesn't address any of the problems. Kind of a catch all answer for everyone who has problems in the church. I would really love to hear what you are really suggesting here.

[CASteinman]

My problem is when people use their personal moral views to justify their efforts to control the behavior of others who don't share that same moral belief.

Seems to me, based upon that comment, you would have a problem with imposing moral views of murder upon sociopaths who do not agree that murdering people -- even lots of people -- is wrong.

[CASteinman]

I would still like to know what members think the answers are to how the church CAN help someone who is gay in the church. What IS the church capable of doing?

The Church can do what it already does.

There seems to be a sense or an assumption behind the question that this is not enough. I suspect the Church does not and cannot do enough for everyone nor for some people in particular. It is just not emotionally, psychologically, physically or spiritually possible to be the answer to all things for all people.

Of course this sounds like I am being unreasonable because obviously that is impossible. Someone asking the question is probably saying, "I meant: What more can the Church do that is practical and reasonable?"

To which I would ask: What more do you think needs to be done? What is being left undone? The Church has been given the Gospel and the Ordinances of the Gospel. It is preaching those principles and conducting those ordinances. What more should it do? What is it not doing that is practical, reasonable (subject to the limitations of ordinary human beings -- many of who are also struggling with their own issues and may even be new converts) and within the scope of its Mission?

What is the legitimate and reasonable expectation that is not being met?

[Robert F. Smith]

The Church can do what it already does.

There seems to be a sense or an assumption behind the question that this is not enough. I suspect the Church does not and cannot do enough for everyone nor for some people in particular. It is just not emotionally, psychologically, physically or spiritually possible to be the answer to all things for all people.

Of course this sounds like I am being unreasonable because obviously that is impossible. Someone asking the question is probably saying, "I meant: What more can the Church do that is practical and reasonable?"

To which I would ask: What more do you think needs to be done? What is being left undone? The Church has been given the Gospel and the Ordinances of the Gospel. It is preaching those principles and conducting those ordinances. What more should it do? What is it not doing that is practical, reasonable (subject to the limitations of ordinary human beings -- many of who are also struggling with their own issues and may even be new converts) and within the scope of its Mission?

What is the legitimate and reasonable expectation that is not being met?

Well, first off I would assess whether LDS Family Services counseling is adequate to the tasks or problems being addressed. I would also want to know whether Evergreen International and the NorthStar Community are adequately structured/organized to handle the real problems we are dealing with here. Are the professionals who run and staff these organizations able to recognize, accept, and overcome their limitations? If theory is controlled in such cases by ideology, that might prevent application of more effective and pragmatic solutions. Indeed, some degree of experimentation might be called for in order to seek out the best methods. Feedback from the clientele ought to be a priority, and it ought to be taken very seriously. Might help prevent some suicides at the very least.

Edited July 21, 2012 by Robert F. Smith

[CV75]

I am not sure what you are suggesting in post #131

It seems your solution is to tell them to go to church and that will solve all their problems? Do you really think that is a solution that is working given all of the issues I have talked about??? Or is it just a simple answer that doesn't address any of the problems. Kind of a catch all answer for everyone who has problems in the church. I would really love to hear what you are really suggesting here.

That is the point—homosexuality is not a “special need” that warrants a programmatic approach. Unless a homosexual is a stranger, widow or fatherless, he warrants no more special attention than any other Church member suffering with one thing or another. The homosexual has the same temporal and spiritual resources to deal with his suffering, if he has any, as any other saint (and not all homosexuals suffer in the same way).

No person can rightfully demand inclusion while proclaiming their sexual identity. “Include me, I have sexual attraction to women / men / children / [categories of race] / [categories of anatomy and/or morphology] and I was born this way / I choose to be this way / I like and celebrate being this way / I hate being this way.” We don’t see the stranger, widow and fatherless doing this kind of thing.

The Church promotes inclusion and charity for all, and this is normally enough. Priesthood leaders can address the exception(s). We still have the occasional racist, fanatic, and political bigot in our midst, but let’s not let that ruin our day. Inclusion in the body of Christ and His eternal blessings does not mean compromising covenants and standards.

Edited July 21, 2012 by CV75

[CASteinman]

Well, first off I would assess whether LDS Family Services counseling is adequate to the tasks or problems being addressed. I would also want to know whether Evergreen International and the NorthStar Community are adequately structured/organized to handle the real problems we are dealing with here. Are the professionals who run and staff these organizations able to recognize, accept, and overcome their limitations? If theory is controlled in such cases by ideology, that might prevent application of more effective and pragmatic solutions. Indeed, some degree of experimentation might be called for in order to seek out the best methods. Feedback from the clientele ought to be a priority, and it ought to be taken very seriously. Might help prevent some suicides at the very least.

I thought we were talking about the Church itself.

[ShawFanX]

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.

Homosexuals are hardly oppressed, and, at least in the last third of the 20th century to the present, never have been. Homosexuals, as a group, are among the most successful, economically and socially, in American society. If, of course, we raise the bar for definitions of "oppression" high enough for specific groups, the entire group will never be able to clear the bar.

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?

While I don't believe homosexuality per se is a sexual addiction (although sexual fetishisms of various kinds have a prominent place within the subculture), the problem of homosexuality is the problem of the modern concept of sexual orientation, which takes homosexuality out of the range of the law of chastity and places it in a privileged place beyond the reach of its regulatory boundaries. For the Church, unmarried people, both heterosexual and homosexual, must be celibate. Further, as within the gospel, homosexual marriage is unintelligible without first utterly destroying the concept of marriage in a gospel and civilizational context, this places homosexuals in the unenviable position of maintaining life-long celibacy, unless their homosexual orientation can be changed (and we know that it can for those who are uncomfortable with it and desire such change). It is a dilemma indeed, but one that has not been helped by the homosexual rights/marriage lobby.

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

What occurs, according to Kimball?

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 think the bio/psycho-social model of addiction is the best model we are probably going to have for understanding the genesis of SSA. There is no central, discreet, definable "cause" of SSA, and certainly not one centered in genetics. It would be far better, in my view, to move away from reductionistic "cause" talk regarding homosexuality and admit that we don't have the slightest idea, for any given individual, what leads one to homosexual ideation and to homosexual behavior, and that the origins (not cause) of SSA are highly complex and nuanced processes deeply and perhaps subtly interconnected within biological sensitivities, family dynamics, intrapersonal psychology, and social environment. We are then talking, not about what causes SSA, but what biases, predispositions, and tendencies are inherent in an entire bio/psycho/social framework

Edited July 22, 2012 by ShawFanX

[CASteinman]

Homosexuals are hardly oppressed, and, at least in the last third of the 20th century to the present, never have been.

This whole post from start to finish. I cannot give more than one rep point. Sorry.

[Calm]

Homosexuals are hardly oppressed

Depends on where you are talking about....

[ShawFanX]

This whole post from start to finish. I cannot give more than one rep point. Sorry.

Its happens to be true, however. As a small subcultural group, they are among the most socially and economically successful. There is, true, a huge disproportionate incidence of drug and alcohol abuse, suicide, and venereal disease among this group, but that has its origin in certain practices associated with homosexuality itself, and has not impinged on the overall flourishing of this demographic group.

[ShawFanX]

Depends on where you are talking about....

I wasn't talking about Iran or Libya.

[Calm]

I wasn't talking about Iran or Libya.

Neither was I.

I am not claiming that gays are any more oppressed than other individuals that are seen as sufficiently different from the community, just that in some communities...even in the US...oppression still does occur.

Edited July 22, 2012 by calmoriah

[KevinG]

Mormons, Gays and Christians can hardly be considered oppressed in the West. That would be diluting the word to almost meaningless.

Harassed, misunderstood, discriminated against... that is true. But oppression is too strong a word.

[Calm]

Mormons, Gays and Christians can hardly be considered oppressed in the West. That would be diluting the word to almost meaningless.

Harassed, misunderstood, discriminated against... that is true. But oppression is too strong a word.

Okay, I'll go along with that.

[KevinG]

Okay, I'll go along with that.

I thought the world was ending - me disagreeing with Cal.

[CASteinman]

a huge disproportionate incidence of drug and alcohol abuse, suicide, and venereal disease among this group

There are many issues that are co-morbid with homosexuality - not only physical illnesses. At the same time however it cannot be legitimately said that they have been economically abused.

[ShawFanX]

There are many issues that are co-morbid with homosexuality - not only physical illnesses. At the same time however it cannot be legitimately said that they have been economically abused.

Or socially, in a general sense. Open tolerance for homosexuals in virtually all walks of life is now nearly half a century old. I worked with open homosexuals at Disney World, Florida, and never saw a hint of bigotry in anyone.

[CASteinman]

Or socially, in a general sense. Open tolerance for homosexuals in virtually all walks of life is now nearly half a century old. I worked with open homosexuals at Disney World, Florida, and never saw a hint of bigotry in anyone.

But this is the propaganda that is played out by social activists to gain them guilt generated angst and pressure for additional favors. Favors that are not in harmony with the revelations of God on how families and society should be structured and operated.

Edited July 22, 2012 by CASteinman