Is Being Gay A Sin? Does It Need Amelioration?

[ShawFanX]

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.

All well and good, but all I'm saying is that they are not "oppressed" in America or other Western societies, any more than blacks, woman, or other minorities are (even though they once were, to varying degrees).

Edited July 23, 2012 by ShawFanX

[california boy]

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?

Let's reveiw for a moment what the church through it's Evergreen organization is teaching as truth in regards to being gay. The comments made by em are from the other thread that started this thread when asked what the church teaches through it's Evergreen organization. I would like you to look at my comments so you have a better idea what improvements I feel the church should make. Perhaps this will answer your question on "what more should the church do?"

When asked my experience with Evergreen and whait it is currently teaching, I said:

Quite honestly, going to Evergreen certainly contributed to my conclusion that the church did not offer much for someone who is gay. Just none of what Evergreen taught rang true to me. I guess I felt like if this is the church’s best rational then they haven’t ever really thought about what it must be like to be gay and be a member of the church. It all had a falsehood feel to me. Here is why I felt that. The quotes are directly from Evergreen’s current web site. It is also the exact same thing they were espousing when I was attending Evergreen.

From the Evergreen current web site:

Development of gender role

After a boy identifies his gender, he needs to learn his gender role. It is usually from ages four to eleven that he comes to understand himself as a male and learns how to relate socially with others. The boy develops a healthy masculine gender role most effectively when he can use his father or another significant male in his life as a role model. Alan Medinger wrote, "Modeling is an essential part of this process. In a culture where the father's role is clearly defined, it is not difficult for the boy to seek to form himself with a very clear perception of what he is to become. If the father is uncertain and vacillating in his role, the model becomes blurred, the child confused."² Joseph Nicolosi explained, "The mother's attitude toward father ”and men in general” is very significant. If she undermines his role in the family, this diminishes his status as a desirable model. If the mother does not reflect him as a model to strive for, she fails to demonstrate that there is esteem related to being masculine."

My Response:

I am sorry, but to somehow blame homosexuality on the father or the mother is wrong and disturbing. My parents were both typical active members of the church. My father was the priesthood leader in our family. My mother respected his importance. The other guys that were in my Evergreen group discussed this and felt the same. If this had even a grain of truth, there would be a much bigger percentage of guys raised by single mothers that would “choose” to be gay. I had to wonder why the Church backed this kind of teaching.

From Evergreen's web site:

The boy can admire his father and pattern his life after him. The father can reinforce and affirm the boy's masculine behavior. Through many interactions, the boy learns from his father how to do masculine things. The father also teaches the boy about femininity by demonstrating how men should treat women. It is important that the boy attaches and identifies with his father and that he doesn't perceive him to be absent or emotionally disinterested. He needs to feel that his father is actively and emotionally interested in his socialization. If the boy feels affirmed in these masculine qualities and roles, he accepts the masculine. If he feels rejected, he may develop a confused identity and detach himself from the masculine.

My Response:

Sorry but once again, if crappy fathers were the cause of SSA, then the percentage of gay men would be WAY higher than anyone has ever estimated. There certainly are plenty of straight guys that have crappy fathers.

From the web site:

In earlier times, boys worked daily at the side of their fathers in the fields or in the blacksmith shop. They had close relationships and boys learned from their fathers what it meant to be a man. The industrial revolution took fathers out of the home and put them in factories, and later the information revolution put them in offices doing work that boys don't understand. Today, fathers spend little meaningful time with their sons and therefore boys don't have as many opportunities to learn concepts of masculinity from their fathers

My response:

Wait a minute. If this statement had an ounce of truth, how many men reading this statement right now should, according to Evergreen, should be gay. And I am sorry, but there have been gay men on the earth long before the industrial revolution.

Evergreen teaches:

The masculine conflict

It is difficult to be a man in the world today. In his book The Hazards of Being Male, Herb Goldberg explains that even from childhood, males are in constant conflict. He wrote, "the elementary school setting puts the young boy into more than his share of painful binds. While there is great peer pressure to act like a boy, the teacher's coveted classroom values are traditionally ‘feminine' ones. The emphasis is on politeness, neatness, docility, and cleanliness, with not much approved room being given for the boy to flex his muscles. Teacher's greatest efforts often go into keeping the boys quiet and in their seats."⁴ Dr. Goldberg further explained, "[T]he young boy in our culture is placed into countless such dilemmas. He is told he must become a boy but he has to do so with very limited male model availability. He is taught that ‘real boys' are active and strong but then gets into trouble in school for acting like a ‘real boy.' He is in constant conflict between his own restlessness and the desire to be active and his teacher's demand that he be quiet, submissive, and passive."⁵

My Response:

How many guys are reading this paragraph right now and saying to themselves, I should be gay? My teaches required me to be polite, neat and behave myself as well. What Evergreen teaches just doesn’t ring true to me.

Evergreen:

Suppressing feelings

Young boys are taught to suppress their feelings. "From early boyhood on, his emotions are suppressed by others and therefore repressed by himself. In countless ways he is constantly being conditioned not to express his feelings and needs openly. Though he too has needs for dependency, he learns that it is unmasculine to act in a dependent way. It is also unmasculine to be frightened (‘scared'), to want to be held, stroked, and kissed, to cry, etc. While all of these expressions of self are acceptable in a girl they are incompatible with the boy's sought after image of being tough and in control."⁶

Me:

This also may be true for young men growing up, but then isn’t this a pretty common experience for all guys? Does anyone really think this turns guys gay??? Is this really what the church wants people who are gay to think is the cause of them being gay?? Remember this is from Evergreen’s CURRENT web site, not something that was being taught in the 1950’s

Performance

Boys are taught from a very early age that they must perform. While it is okay for women to focus on relationships and be open emotionally, men learn to be more closed and competitive. As boys, they must run faster and jump higher. As teenagers, they must have the best cars and date the prettiest girls. As adults, they must have the highest-paying jobs and the most expensive houses. As a result, men learn to measure their success not in terms of happiness or fulfillment, but in terms of performance. They define themselves in external rather than internal terms. This performance-oriented view of masculinity is so focused on goals that close friendships become difficult. While such a focus may enable a man to build a career, it inevitably sets up emotional roadblocks to a fulfilling personal life.

My comment:

LOL talk about playing into stero types. To say that gay men are not athletic is a joke. Wait a minute. I played sports in high school. Why am I gay? Why is there professional athletes that are gay. And has anyone teaching this doctrine ever been to a leather bar? You can’t get much more macho and masculine than those guys. To imply that gays are some how sissy boys is well just stupid playing into sterotypes from the 50’s.

The question I kept coming back to was: If this is what the church teaches about SSA, then they are absolutely clueless to what it is like to be gay. The falseness of it all left me feeling like the church is so wrong on this whole issue.

You ask, " What more do you think needs to be done? What is being left undone?" How about an honest approach to what the church's Evergreen teaches gay members. Do you not think that ANY of those points are worth the church revaluating how it approaches this issue?

[california boy]

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.

I agree with you. If the church does not feel God wants gays to marry in the church, that expectation should not be asked for. But that is not exactly what I responded to. You might want to reread the OP to be reminded what I AM talking about. Do you feel those points have any validly?

Evergreen should be an organization that supports and helps a gay member learn to live within the church guidelines. How does a gay person deal with parents who reject him. How does a gay person deal with brothers and sisters that no longer want him in their lives? How does a gay person deal with feeling that they will never be considered full members in the church. How does a gay man come to grips that the only jobs in the church will be minor roles in serving God. That if the church did not know he was gay, then he would be allowed to serve in any capacity. And those are the easy questions that should be addressed by an organization like Evergreen.

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 mans head daily. Do you think it is comforting to tell a gay man that if he is faithful in living this life that is outlined by the church currently, he will be able to enter the Celestial Kingdom and live throughout eternity with a woman?? Yikes. None of those issues are ever addressed by Evergreen or the church. I certainly would like to know what path God has for me as a gay man. So far none has been revealed. So what is the motivation that would cause someone to make such a life for themselves.

[CASteinman]

Let's reveiw for a moment what the church through it's Evergreen organization is teaching as truth in regards to being gay.

The Church does not have an Evergreen organization. The question was about what the Church can do... not what some other organization can do. I view this as a bait and switch approach. If your trouble is with Evergreen that should have been the question focus.

[CV75]

You might want to reread the OP to be reminded what I AM talking about. Do you feel those points have any validly?

I’m not sure why someone could not ask the OP questions while receiving Evergreen services. Are your questions for those who do not have a problem with being gay per se, but yet suffer because of it?

If so, the easy questions (dealing the family and organizational relationship issues) can be handled by most therapists. In context of the OP, this has to be the priority, and not about how someone is different, as many people suffer the same things for many other reasons than being gay. The focus has to be on how the individual deals with how others treat him (or how he perceives he is treated), not on what makes him “different”, especially if his set beliefs and practical limitations are not subject to discussion for change.

I believe the hard (spiritual) questions can be handled by the replies I offered already. The root of these issues transcends being gay, so losing oneself (which often includes how one sees and prioritizes himself as a child of God against other descriptors or identities) will help get these questions answered.

To address what I see as the two most pertinent questions you asked in the OP:

Do you think it is comforting to tell a gay man that if he is faithful in living this life that is outlined by the church currently, he will be able to enter the Celestial Kingdom and live throughout eternity with a woman?? Yikes. It depends on how much faith he has in His Lord and in the Lord’s plan, and how much he is willing to lose his life to gain it. Being gay is not so important as to color all spiritual considerations, any more than are race, circumstances of birth, physical or personality attributes, etc.

None of those issues are ever addressed by Evergreen or the church. I certainly would like to know what path God has for me as a gay man. The Church focuses on what path God has for you as one of His children, irrespective of you being a gay man. It is a path of faith and selflessness that God will walk along with you.

[california boy]

The Church does not have an Evergreen organization. The question was about what the Church can do... not what some other organization can do. I view this as a bait and switch approach. If your trouble is with Evergreen that should have been the question focus.

Evergreen is the Churches organization run under priesthood authority to deal with SSA in the church. It has priesthood leadership assigned to oversee Evergreen meetings. They meet in LDS churches. No other outside groups particiapte in Evergreen. General authorities speak at the Evergreen conference in SLC every year. It is the organization that bishops refer gay members to as instructed by the handbook. How much more of a LDS church organization could you make it?? Now do you still feel this is a bait and switch??? Are the issues I brought up relevant or not?

[CASteinman]

Evergreen is the Churches organization

Call for Reference that this is the "Church's Organization". Their website does not claim this and wikipedia says that they are independent of the Church.

The Church also supports Boy Scouts and the Red Cross and Church leaders speak at conferences for those entities. This does not make them Church Organizations.

Yes, I feel this is bait and switch. The question was about the Church, not about Evergreen. If you have a gripe with Evergreen that's a different matter.

The reason this particularly perturbs me is that the question pertained to an organization in which I am a member and have an interest. I would like to see what ideas there are for THE CHURCH in this area. But I am not a member and have no affiliation or interest in Evergreen. It is an entirely different organization and a different matter. Again... if you have a grief with Evergreen that's a different thread.

Edited July 23, 2012 by CASteinman

[Jaybear]

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.

Seems to me that you are going out of your way to miss the point.

But to address your example, I do enjoy Dexter, which is about a sociopath who murders sociopaths. Consistent with my comment, I have no qualms with that, as Dexter is not imposing his moral view, murder is not wrong, on people who don't share his moral viewpoint.

Perhaps a better more illustrative example would be laws against suicide. If I am suffering from a chronic illness, which will impose hardship on my family, I believe that I should have the right to commit suicide, and seek the necessary assistance to see that its done painlessly and effectively.

People who consider suicide to immoral, have a very simple solution. Don't commit suicide.

[Jaybear]

Call for Reference that this is the "Church's Organization". Their website does not claim this and wikipedia says that they are independent of the Church.

The Church also supports Boy Scouts and the Red Cross and Church leaders speak at conferences for those entities. This does not make them Church Organizations.

Yes, I feel this is bait and switch. The question was about the Church, not about Evergreen. If you have a gripe with Evergreen that's a different matter.

The reason this particularly perturbs me is that the question pertained to an organization in which I am a member and have an interest. I would like to see what ideas there are for THE CHURCH in this area. But I am not a member and have no affiliation or interest in Evergreen. It is an entirely different organization and a different matter. Again... if you have a grief with Evergreen that's a different thread.

While I would not say bait and switch, as this implies fraud, you have a point. According to its mission statement:

Evergreen sustains the doctrines and standards of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints without reservation or exception, but is not affiliated with the Church. Evergreen welcomes all people who wish to participate in the pursuit of these goals.

Nonetheless, given the relationship, its clear that the LDS Church supports the mission, which makes the program germane to the discussion.

Edited July 23, 2012 by Jaybear

[CV75]

If I am suffering from a chronic illness, which will impose hardship on my family, I believe that I should have the right to commit suicide, and seek the necessary assistance to see that its done painlessly and effectively.

But you cannot expect to get this assistance from the people having contradictory morals, and you cannot impose your wishes upon them. You might be able to find family members willing to break the law for you if it is worth it to them—sometimes it may be moral to do so.

P.S. Did you overlook my reply to you in post #177?

[CASteinman]

Seems to me that you are going out of your way to miss the point.

I am addressing the point. Seems to me you do not like my response is all. You think that people should not use morals as a basis for laws that enforce behavior on people.

What, pray tell, should the basis be, if not some idea of what is right and wrong?

[CASteinman]

While I would not say bait and switch, as this implies fraud

The problem is, that the discussion was opened as a question about what THE CHURCH could do.

But now the person who I believe is really asking the question, has changed it to some other organization. This is simply not relevant to the Church and yes, I don't think it is an honest approach to ask how the Church can do something better then bring up grief with a separate organization.

[Jaybear]

But you cannot expect to get this assistance from the people having contradictory morals, and you cannot impose your wishes upon them. You might be able to find family members willing to break the law for you if it is worth it to them—sometimes it may be moral to do so.

P.S. Did you overlook my reply to you in post #177?

I would not ask or expect assistance from people who are morally opposed to suicide.

As to "breaking the law", my point is that it I don't believe it should be against the law.

[Jaybear]

The problem is, that the discussion was opened as a question about what THE CHURCH could do.

But now the person who I believe is really asking the question, has changed it to some other organization. This is simply not relevant to the Church and yes, I don't think it is an honest approach to ask how the Church can do something better then bring up grief with a separate organization.

If what the LDS Church DOES refer its members "struggling with SSA" to Evergreen, and is closely associated with the organization, then exploring Evergreen is most certainly relevant to a question of what the LDS Church could/should do.

[Closet Doubter]

Perhaps someone has already mentioned this recently but an interesting quote from Elder Bruce C. Hafen, a member of the First Quorum of the Seventy, speaking at the 19th annual conference of Evergreen International made this promise:

"If you are faithful, on resurrection morning -- and maybe even before then -- you will rise with normal attractions for the opposite sex."

http://www.evergreen...-Conference.pdf

As far as I can tell gays will have to live with this thorn in their side and remain celibate at least until the second coming. I don't see the policy changing before then.

So lets see if I understand this. If a gay person lives a celibate lifestyle, not being sealed to anyone in the temple because he is gay, he will rise in the resurrection with hetero sexual desires but it will be too late because he will be alone thru eternity because he chose not to be sealed in the temple but to make matters worse, he will have hetero desires that he won't be able to fulfill because he isn't sealed to a female. Wow, what a thing to look forward to.

[Jaybear]

I am addressing the point. Seems to me you do not like my response is all. You think that people should not use morals as a basis for laws that enforce behavior on people.

Again, that is not what I said. If that were actually what I thought, then that is what I would have wrote.

What, pray tell, should the basis be, if not some idea of what is right and wrong?

I ask myself whether such a law would be in the best interest of society.

If the reason you oppose gay marriage, simply because you believe its immoral, then I have a problem with you and people like you who try to impose your personal view of morality on others that don't share that view.

[california boy]

Call for Reference that this is the "Church's Organization". Their website does not claim this and wikipedia says that they are independent of the Church.

The Church also supports Boy Scouts and the Red Cross and Church leaders speak at conferences for those entities. This does not make them Church Organizations.

Yes, I feel this is bait and switch. The question was about the Church, not about Evergreen. If you have a gripe with Evergreen that's a different matter.

The reason this particularly perturbs me is that the question pertained to an organization in which I am a member and have an interest. I would like to see what ideas there are for THE CHURCH in this area. But I am not a member and have no affiliation or interest in Evergreen. It is an entirely different organization and a different matter. Again... if you have a grief with Evergreen that's a different thread.

Unlike the BSA and Red Cross, the church set up this organization. Like I said earlier, it is run under priesthood direction. Each Evergreen group has a priesthood leader whose calling is to be responsible for running the local chapter. It is not an auxileary of the church, but it is definitely a program run under priesthood leadership. The way it was explained to me is that it is similar to LDS social services and some of the drug/alcohol programs the church runs. There is a big difference between Evergreen and the Red Cross and its relationship to the church.

Let's step back from that for a minute. Without Evergreen, what exactly does the church offere gay members in the way of counseling and dealing with the issues I mentioned. If you take away Evergreen from the church as an organization, what do you have left? Because I can tell you from personal experience most bishops and stake presidents do not feel like they have the background or experience to be of much help other than offering encouragement to gay members. That is why the church instructs these priesthood leaders to direct the gay members to Evergreen. Without Evergreen, the church really offers nothing. Is that any better?

[KevinG]

The church offers a path to Christ for anyone willing to give up their carnal self and repent of sins. This includes overcoming any desire, addiction, weakness or predilection that can lead to sinning. If you do not like the fact that your particular way of being is not consistent with what the church teaches it is not up to you to have the church re-define what God has called sin or weakness or complain that the programs affiliated with the church do not excuse your particular desires.

Having given up many sins that I am predisposed to engage in I do not have an overabundance of sympathy for those who want their sins excused. I do however have empathy for their struggles.

“When obedience ceases to be an irritant and becomes our quest, in that moment God will endow us with power.”

― Ezra Taft Benson

[CV75]

I would not ask or expect assistance from people who are morally opposed to suicide.

As to "breaking the law", my point is that it I don't believe it should be against the law.

That does not square with what you posted above. By making it a law in a society that opposes it, you are expecting assistance from people who are morally opposed to it.

"If I am suffering from a chronic illness, which will impose hardship on my family, I believe that I should have the right to commit suicide, and seek the necessary assistance to see that its done painlessly and effectively." You assert that suicide should be legal in two ways: a) you should have the right to do it, and b) on top of that with the necessary assistance to make it painless and effective. You are saying it should be allowable but that society does not agree with you.

Why do you have a problem 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?

Do you really deal with individuals who behave this way, and if so, how?

How is this happening with the BSA?

Do you feel that the BSA is acting on an immoral principle, and if so, how?

[Jaybear]

Why do you have a problem 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?

Because I believe that people should be free to make their own personal moral choices for actions which don't infringe on others.

If you think its wrong to shop on Sunday, don't shop on Sunday. However, I can't shop for cars on Sunday in Utah, because a majority of the state legislature, thinks its morally wrong to shop for cars on Sunday.

Do you think that I should I be thanking them for saving me from offending God?

It used to be against the law in Utah (and other places) for married couples to have sex in manner which were not approved by God. Would you care to guess what motivated lawmakers to pass such laws?

Do you really deal with individuals who behave this way, and if so, how?

I don't know what you mean by "deal."

How is this happening with the BSA?

Certain members on the BSA executive board, based on their personal moral beliefs that homosexuality is a sin, are using their position of authority on the BSA executive board to perpetuate bigotry and discrimination against gay youth.

Do you feel that the BSA is acting on an immoral principle, and if so, how?

No.

That does not square with what you posted above. By making it a law in a society that opposes it, you are expecting assistance from people who are morally opposed to it.

I don't understand your logic. How can I make it a law in a society that opposes it? I don't have that sort of power.

Edited July 23, 2012 by Jaybear

[Calm]

So lets see if I understand this. If a gay person lives a celibate lifestyle, not being sealed to anyone in the temple because he is gay, he will rise in the resurrection with hetero sexual desires but it will be too late because he will be alone thru eternity because he chose not to be sealed in the temple but to make matters worse, he will have hetero desires that he won't be able to fulfill because he isn't sealed to a female. Wow, what a thing to look forward to.

You do not understand it. The Lord will provide all blessings that were not accessible to those in this life if the lack of accessibility is not their fault. This would include personal characteristics due to environmental influences (which would include nature as well as nurture) that get in the way of living the gospel to the fullest or having to make choices that restrict oneself to protect or promote another's needs. So if a gay man chose to live a celibate life in belief this was a commandment from the Lord and did not choose to get married because he believed this would be an inappropriate relationship with a woman due to him not being able to love her as is expected in a marriage, then he is sacrificing his desire to protect another and therefore will be rewarded accordingly, including having the opportunity to have his homosexual desires changed if he so desires it and to marry in the next life. Edited July 23, 2012 by calmoriah

[Jaybear]

You do not understand it. The Lord will provide all blessings that were not accessible to those in this life if the lack of accessibility is not their fault.

Doctrine or feel good folk doctrine?

Moreover, gays are quite capable of getting married and having children. If you believe God sent a angel to Smith to compel him to marry other women against his desires, then do your really think God considers marriage to be "inaccessible" to gay men, just because they would rather be with men.

[CV75]

Because I believe that people should be free to make their own personal moral choices for actions which don't infringe on others.

LOL—“Don’t Legislate Morality!!!” I’m sorry but this is as ridiculous as it is as old as the hills.

I don't understand your logic.

Never mind--I just remembered your solution to the BSA policy is for enough old people to die.

[CASteinman]

If what the LDS Church DOES refer its members "struggling with SSA" to Evergreen, and is closely associated with the organization, then exploring Evergreen is most certainly relevant to a question of what the LDS Church could/should do.

Only to this extent: Should the Church make such referrals? The Church also refers people to other places and things depending upon the issue. This is just one of a bunch.

Because Evergreen is not the Church. When asking what the Church can do, we can say: Refer people to Evergreen, Don't Refer people to Evergreen or sometimes refer them to Evergreen and sometimes not.

That is the limit of what the Church can do in this regard. Any other discussion is bait and switch.

[KevinG]

Its bad logic anyway. the BSA policy is supported by a wide swath of BSA membership of all ages. It is based on the ability to freely associate with others who share similar moral and intellectual beliefs. Forcing the BSA to change policy would be the true attempt at legislating morality and an affront to libertarian principles.