Thoughts On Making The Lds Church More Lgbt Friendly Without Changing "Doctrine"

[Cobalt-70]

There is no evidence....unless you are claiming that comments made by another person about them in a children's magazine were somehow romantic lesbian love notes, which is ridiculous. Presentism---using the florid for us language of the day to claim that they meant something they didn't---strikes again. You are equating romantic love with brotherly love so I guess that makes all siblings and parents and children "in love" with each other. I find accusing these women of lying and covenant breaking (since such would have been against church teachings and considered sinful to promote such feelings) to promote your own agenda very wrong.

I think it is you, my friend, who is guilty of presentism. Perhaps we can blame your unnecessarily-scandalous reaction on modern society's preoccupation with sexual intimacy as the only "real" form of romantic love. It wasn't always so. Back then, romantic love and sex were quite different things, and yet not the same thing, either, as "brotherly love" or familial love. Louie and May were romantic lovers, regardless of their sexual orientation, and regardless of what might have happened, or not happened, between the sheets of their shared bed, which is none of our business.

[ERayR]

I think it is you, my friend, who is guilty of presentism. Perhaps we can blame your unnecessarily-scandalous reaction on modern society's preoccupation with sexual intimacy as the only "real" form of romantic love. It wasn't always so. Back then, romantic love and sex were quite different things, and yet not the same thing, either, as "brotherly love" or familial love. Louie and May were romantic lovers, regardless of their sexual orientation, and regardless of what might have happened, or not happened, between the sheets of their shared bed, which is none of our business.

Then why are you trying to transfer your own prurient thoughts onto the thoughts and motives of someone not here to defend themselves?

[Calm]

I think it is you, my friend, who is guilty of presentism. Perhaps we can blame your unnecessarily-scandalous reaction on modern society's preoccupation with sexual intimacy as the only "real" form of romantic love. It wasn't always so. Back then, romantic love and sex were quite different things, and yet not the same thing, either, as "brotherly love" or familial love. Louie and May were romantic lovers, regardless of their sexual orientation, and regardless of what might have happened, or not happened, between the sheets of their shared bed, which is none of our business.

I could care less about whether or not they were actually homosexual or romantically attracted to each other. It is the accusation of lying and covenant breaking that goes along with the claim that bothers me.

And if you were actually my friend or at least read what I wrote you would know this.

Edited July 19, 2012 by calmoriah

[ShawFanX]

The San Francisco and Oakland stakes have outreach programs to LGBT members in their boundaries, welcoming them back, including those who have partners. And many have returned. There is no requirement that they break up with their spouses/partners. They cannot hold certain positions, as the Church spokesman said. On the other hand, my understanding is, those stakes have not been excommunicating such LGBT members who are in stable relationships and returning just to be with other members.

Are you here claiming that the SF and Oakland stakes are allowing homosexuals to continue their sexual relations with their lovers, or just that they can remain in those relationships (as ultra-rare among male homosexuals as this in reality is) in an emotional and psychological sense, but minus sexual contact? Heterosexual couples who have accepted the gospel and would like to be baptized must no longer live together to qualify for the initiatory ordinances of the gospel.

If I understand correctly the pastoral stance being taken by those two stakes--i.e., welcoming noncelibate gays without requiring them to break up with partners--I think a similar stance could be taken throughout the Church.

CFR.

We need more LGBT members sitting with us

At only a vanishingly tiny 2% or 3% of the population, and given the social and psychological dynamics internal to the gay subculture, I wouldn't expect much of anything like this to transpire. However, what you seem to be talking about here is "doping" and diluting the law of chastity at depth, and not only for open, non-celibate homosexuals, but for bisexuals and transsexuals, who have made at least quasi-permanent cosmetic changes to their anatomy which bespeak extremely deep gender identity problems that would not seem to be compatible with faithful living of the gospel.

If elements of the Church actually begin to define deviance down and become accepting of "polymorphous perversity" within its own precincts, my feeling then is that ripeness is upon us.

And that is true, in my opinion, whether they are living the norms or not. To paraphrase Pres. Uchtdorf, it should make no difference to me that "they are sinning differently" from the way I do.

By which you apparently are putting words into Elder Uchtdorf's mouth in which you are having him say, "Most members are already living together out of wedlock and committing adultery, so a few open, non-celebate homosexuals isn't going to matter much. We're all sinners anyway." Is that the general gist of it?

Thus, I could see the Church changing its disciplinary stance on LGBT members in same sex partnerships, along the lines implicitly suggested by the Church's spokesperson in the NY Times article above--noncelibate LGBT are welcome to attend and participate in many ways, but not to hold certain positions (and presumably not attend the temple).

And so, following the general trajectory of political correctness in the surrounding secular world, the Church is now to abandon core doctrine and, on top of this, create a special class of sexual untouchables within the Church immune from key aspects of the law of chastity that are binding on others. Heterosexual fornication and adultery are, depending upon the situation, disfellowshipment and excommunicable offenses. A second adulterous relationship means excommunication. And yet, you are claiming that homosexuals be allowed to engage in sexual relations utterly outside the boundaries of the law of chastity with impunity, with only a few restrictions as to holding callings and a restriction on Temple worship?

And all these years I was an alcoholic and couldn't go to the Temple. All that time, all I had to do was petition the Brethren and my SP for a "evolving" interpretation of the Word of Wisdom. Then I could have come into this forum and stated, "There is no requirement that (alcoholics) stop drinking completely, and end their relationship with alcohol. They cannot engage in certain activities, such as Church leadership positions and Temple worship. On the other hand, certain stakes have not been restricting callings and Temple attendance and allowing active addicts (alcohol, marijuana, cocaine etc.) members who are drinking/using responsibly and returning just to be with other members

Now, the question is this: you have claimed that certain stakes in the Church, apparently with approval from the Brethren, are accepting sexually active

1. Homosexuals

2. Bisexuals

3. Transsexuals

Into essentially full or quasi-full membership without restriction on their sexual activity (i.e., they are allowed to engage, on a continual basis, in homosexual and bisexual activity with various "lovers" so long as they are in "committed" relationships). Now, given this, upon what basis could quasi or, in time, full Church fellowship be granted to:

1. Cohabiting couples.

2. Adulterous relationships, so long as they are committed.

3. Swingers (wife swapping), who claim to find personal fulfillment in sharing their love and love for their spouses among others.

4. BDSM fetishists (Bondage, Domination, and Sado-masochism).

5. Pedophiles (with perhaps restrictions on age at a certain point)

?

Edited July 19, 2012 by ShawFanX

[ShawFanX]

Two gay men already potentially have that kinship and sealing as I mentioned before (gay child/siblings to gay parent). Everyone will/can be sealed eventually into the family of Adam, including homosexuals,

Non-doctrinal. They, so long as they continue in a "gay" lifestyle and with a "gay" identity, as with all who reject and rebel against the gospel of Jesus Christ, have neither root nor branch in eternity. The doctrine is clear, it is eternal, and it has never been altered since Adam. There is no scriptural or modern General Authority support for the italicized portion of your statement, if by that you mean homosexuals who engage in homosexual sexual activity and behavior.

Edited July 19, 2012 by ShawFanX

[wenglund]

The LGBT situation seems to be very similar to the Black Priesthood situation. Both instances appeared like a wise move to make.

I can't think of a single significant aspect that is similar between the two. Perhaps you can enlighten me?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Calm]

Clearly pure speculation... it does make a tadbit of sense though.

The kingdom is on earth never to be removed agan. That would mean the kingdoms survival is of utmost importance.

Wouldn't the kingdom be better off without members who are swayed so much by personal bigotry that they are willing to turn their back on the gospel?

[CV75]

Non-doctrinal. They, so long as they continue in a "gay" lifestyle and with a "gay" identity, as with all who reject and rebel against the gospel of Jesus Christ, have neither root nor branch in eternity. The doctrine is clear, it is eternal, and it has never been altered since Adam. There is no scriptural or modern General Authority support for the italicized portion of your statement, if by that you mean homosexuals who engage in homosexual sexual activity and behavior.

Well, I avoid judging their person(s) collectively or individually. Of course no unrepentant person can enjoy eternal blessings. The italicized portion, "Everyone will/can be sealed eventually into the family of Adam, including homosexuals," is doctrinally correct for the repentant. Repentant homosexuals, heterosexuals and persons in between or otherwise sexual may qualify, but if repentance includes thoughts and desires, how many do you boldy wish to condemn?

[CASteinman]

God will ultimately judge the validity of their path, not us.

Ultimately, yes. But here on earth some things are committed into our hands as well.

I believe that invitation becomes distorted when the church, which is to ideally be politically neutral, begins campaigning against other people's democratic efforts to have the same rights and privilege as other marriages.

Actually the invitation is slightly less distorted. There should be no accidental belief that somehow the Church is bendy on this issue.

I believe that the church's policy of putting an asterisk on someone church record with a history or admission of homosexual activity that can never be removed even if one repents also distort that invitation and contradicts the principle of repentance.

I agree. I think, unfortunately, it is somewhat required due to laws and lawsuits. The world has forced its way into these matters and made the Church conform in ways that it would not have considered on its own. Not that I am in favor of this, but I suspect it could be helpful in certain cases. I worry about misuse. I would rather that the issue was removed from ecclesiastical hands and put into the hands of lawyers -- since they are the ones who are really responsible here.

More education and understanding of the biological yet complex nature of sexual orientation can help encourage empathy and help eradicate some of terms used to define homosexuality as just merely being "temptations" or "tendencies" just like any other temptation.

I do not agree with this. I also do not agree that these are things that require no changes to doctrines. The changes may not be to scripture, but policies and procedures -- which are doctrine -- would need to change.

[CASteinman]

The LGBT situation seems to be very similar to the Black Priesthood situation. Both instances appeared like a wise move to make. It is, however, the current membership that it would harm. Just think about what would have happened if blacks were giving the same authority as white men in the racist era. It would have made many white members leave the church, which was the majority of members. That is also the situation in this case, it would cause some to leave church and be a faith killer. That is why, despite it being for the best of the church in the long run, it will not happen right now.

This is a cynical and uniformed view of things.

[CASteinman]

Whether or not Louie and May were lesbians--or just straight lovers--is beside the point. Nor is it really our business whether their romance had any physical component to it. They were never explicit on that point, so only they know whether or not they were physically intimate. But it doesn't matter. They had a true romance.

One of the more ridiculous posts you have produced.

[Calm]

the church, which is to ideally be politically neutral

Do you mean by your ideals or by the Church's standards?

[Damien the Leper]

I can't think of a single significant aspect that is similar between the two. Perhaps you can enlighten me?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

What would be the point? There is a ridiculous picture on the internet of 2 black men who may be gay but are wearing shirts that say "Gay is the new Black" and below the picture it says: "As gays are blacks once were. As blacks are gays may become."

Perhaps this is the poorly reasoned argument to which you are seeking enlightenment. Don't hold your breath, Wade.

[wenglund]

What would be the point?

The point is to get people to actually think critically about these kinds of popular sound bites, on the off chance they may realize the inanity of those sound bites, and be less inclined in the future to uncritically drink the cool-aid.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited July 20, 2012 by wenglund

[Cobalt-70]

Then why are you trying to transfer your own prurient thoughts onto the thoughts and motives of someone not here to defend themselves?

Defend themselves against what? They were already happy to proclaim to the world their homoromantic love for each other. The issue of physical intimacy, or lack thereof, had nothing necessarily to do with it, and both of them very well might have been straight as arrows. That's not my business. But regardless of their sexual orientation, they were open about and proud of their 40-year romance. I think it was beautiful. But I also don't think such a couple as Louie and May would be accepted in the LDS Church today, let alone given the reins of the Primary program. We are too distrustful of, and prejudiced against, any deviation whatsoever from heteronormativity.

[Calm]

be less inclined in the future to uncritically drink the cool-aid.

Totally off topic, I wonder if the Kool-Aid execs ever curse Flavor Aid (the stuff actually used at Jonestown).

[wenglund]

Totally off topic, I wonder if the Kool-Aid execs ever curse Flavor Aid (the stuff actually used at Jonestown).

I am not sure given the old saying: "There is no such thing as bad publicity."

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Cobalt-70]

I could care less about whether or not they were actually homosexual or romantically attracted to each other. It is the accusation of lying and covenant breaking that goes along with the claim that bothers me.

Who said anything about lying or covenant breaking? I don't think Louie and May did either. Besides, even if they were both Kinsey-6 lesbians and had sex with each other, which I am not saying and don't really believe and don't think is my business, the early 20th century temple ceremony technically only prohibited "sexual intercourse with any of the opposite sex." The point is, let's stop judging them, and people like them, who attend our services. Let's stop caring about their sex lives, and start celebrating and encouraging love they have for each other. After all, "where love is, there God is [supposed to be] also."

[Cobalt-70]

One of the more ridiculous posts you have produced.

Haven't you ever heard of straight women having "girl crushes"? Think about two straight women whose girl crush graduates into an intense romantic love for each other that lasts for 40 years, complete with all the love letters and googley eyes. If Louie and May were straight, then that describes their relationship. In modern society, we don't believe such things are possible, because everything today is about sex, sex, sex. But in a less homophobic era, romance was not the same as sex.

[Calm]

So you are not only claiming that romantic homosexual behaviour would not be viewed as a sin or breaking of a temple covenant (married men even could go out and have sex with men and married women with women, that it was perfectly okay to be in love romantically with someone outside of marriage as long as it was with the same gender), but that homosexual romantic literature would be put into the Church's children magazine.

If this is what you are actually claiming, I find no further need to discuss this with you.

Edited July 20, 2012 by calmoriah

[CASteinman]

Haven't you ever heard of straight women having "girl crushes"?

Doubling down on the silliness.

[ERayR]

Doubling down on the silliness.

Once one gets foot in mouth it becomes difficult to extract. I think that's where he's at.