If Ssa Is Not A Choice Which Appears To Be Current Thinking

[DBMormon]

If SSA is not a choice, which appears to be current thinking of the church that it is indeed not a choice, then is our treatment of SSA individuals any different then our treatment of African lineage prior to 1978? If you see a difference please state in full why they are different.

Not dealing with the church here but our individual behavior from member to member

Also deal with this issue from the perspective of our excluding these two groups and the hurt and pain that causes.

Do we as individuals treat either of these groups in ways that would be unbecoming of a member of the church and a disciple of Christ?

[altersteve]

It's not homosexual people we disapprove of, it's homosexual behavior. There's a HUGE difference.

[Avatar4321]

I think the question we need to ask is do we believe Christ can truly change human nature?

[Zeta-Flux]

DBMormon,

I'm not sure I understand your question. In what ways do you see a similarity between how the church talks about SSA and about how it dealt with priesthood issues pre-1978?

[Pahoran]

If SSA is not a choice, which appears to be current thinking of the church that it is indeed not a choice,

Then neither is OSA (opposite sex attraction.)

And yet we expect OSA people to control their attractions. We excommunicate married people for adultery and have various degrees of Church discipline for unmarried people who have sex before marriage.

It may be that we cannot always choose the directions in which we may be tempted. But we can always choose our response to those temptations. And we are accountable for those choices. This is called agency.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Zeta-Flux]

Pahoran,

I think he may be talking about the fact that people with OSA (as you call it) have the hope of an eventual outlet for their desires (marriage), but those with SSA have no such hope. They have (apparently) been born with a condition that has no outlet. I'm not certain this is what he is talking about, or what connection it has to the priesthood ban, so I'll let him clarify.

[TAO]

If SSA is not a choice, which appears to be current thinking of the church that it is indeed not a choice, then is our treatment of SSA individuals any different then our treatment of African lineage prior to 1978? If you see a difference please state in full why they are different.

Not dealing with the church here but our individual behavior from member to member

Also deal with this issue from the perspective of our excluding these two groups and the hurt and pain that causes.

Do we as individuals treat either of these groups in ways that would be unbecoming of a member of the church and a disciple of Christ?

Nah, it is different. One is a characteristic that is extremely difficult to change (skin color), the other is a behavior which is difficult to change. So it wouldn't exactly line up well to Africans and 1978.

Many treat them poorly, that is true yes. But we only exclude to the extent God asks us too. Some take it too far, some don't take it far enough.

Edited August 24, 2012 by TAO

[guerreiro9]

If SSA is not a choice, which appears to be current thinking of the church that it is indeed not a choice

I believe that choice is indeed an element of same sex attraction, as it is an element in all attractions, and would be willing to discuss my beliefs if you wish (I do not wish to derail your thread). I do not believe I have ever heard any leader of the Church indicate that choice plays no part in same sex attraction. I have heard them state that they do not know why some are afflicted with same sex attraction while others are not, but I do not believe this statement by itself removes all elements of choice. Human sexuality is a very complex thing which involves elements of choice, culture, physical nature, and experiences among other things. I see no reason to remove choice from this list, and I do not believe the Church has either.

[CASteinman]

Sinful nature is not a choice. it is a condition. But the choice to sin or to repent and do right is within the power of at least some of us.

It is basis upon which God will segregate us into Kingdoms.

I hope I will live long enough to purify myself some more and be a worthy example of His Mercy Grace and Love. I earnestly want this and pray for it. I also believe, based upon my experience with prayer and answers, that God will bless me.

To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne. -- Jesus

Edited August 24, 2012 by CASteinman

[teddyaware]

"There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death" (Proverbs 14:12).

I think it is quite likely that the gay marriage issue is going to be one of those contoversies that will eventually tear the Church in two. Some of the early leaders of the Restoration taught that there is going to be a future period of intra-church stife, strife among Church tha members that will be a great test for the saints. President Heber C. Kimball described this future day of enmity within the Church this way:

"Yes, we think we are secure here in the chambers of these everlasting hills, where we can close the doors of the canyons against mobs and persecutors, the wicked and the vile, who have always beset us with violence and robbery, but I want to say to you, my brethren, that the time is coming when we will be mixed up in these now peaceful valleys to that extent that it will be difficult to tell the face of a Saint from the face of an enemy against the people of God. Then is the time to look out for the great sieve, for there will be a great sifting time, and many (of the members) will fall. For I say unto you there is a test, a Test, a TEST coming.

I believe there will likely be a time in the not-too-distant future (perhaps it's starting now) when some members will apply great pressure to the General Authorities in order to have the Church conform with the ways of an increasingly evil world that's ripening in iniquity. This unrighteous desire for conformity with the ways of a fallen world will be probably be pursed for many reasons, not the least of which will be a fear that if we as a church don't go along to get along, we'll be inviting persecution to descend upon our heads. It's very possible one of the issues for which this pressure for conformity will be applied will be a call for a change in the Church's stand on homosexuality and gay marriage.

To add to the trials and tribulations caused by this heartbreaking strife within the Church, there will be great external (non-member)pressures to compel change as well. This outside pressure will be applied in many ways, including threats of financial ruin, ostracism, and violence. This may be the dramatic period of the latter days that Nephi saw in his great vision, wherein we read:

"And it came to pass that I beheld that the great mother of abominations did gather together multitudes upon the face of all the earth, among all the nations of the Gentiles, to fight against the Lamb of God." (1 Nephi 14:13)

With all this mercilous inward and outer pressure for conformity put upon the Church, many members will fall away. And in order to preserve their way of life, possesions, and their lives, they will defect and join themselves to the anti-christ kingdoms of the world. This may be the time of the "Great Sieve" mentioned by President Kimball, above.

But for the members who weather the storms and remain true and faithful to the Lord and his Church, there is a glorious hope, a great reward for their faith, courage and steadfastness. For Nephi's vision continues in the next verse with these thrilling words:

"And it came to pass that I, Nephi, beheld the power of the Lamb of God, that it descended upon the saints of the church of the Lamb, and upon the covenant people of the Lord, who were scattered upon all the face of the earth; and they were armed with righteousness and with the power of God in great glory." (1 Nephi 14:14)

After this great outpouring of holy power upon the remaining saints -- as we read further on in chapter 14 -- we see a reversal of fortunes for the hosts of the 'mother of abominations,' and she and her people are, eventually, utterly destroyed; cast down by the eternal power of the God of Israel.

Could happen...

.

[DavidB]

If SSA is not a choice, which appears to be current thinking of the church that it is indeed not a choice, then is our treatment of SSA individuals any different then our treatment of African lineage prior to 1978? If you see a difference please state in full why they are different.

Yes and No. There is a statement from the First Presidency that we come to earth knowing what challenges we will face; this statement was given in regard to Blacks. Though there is no similar statement concerning those who are attracted to members of their same sex, it stands to reason that such persons knew what they would face. So in that respect there could be a similarity.

As for a difference, A Black male and subsequently his family, was denied the full blessing of the Priesthood in the home. A person who is attracted to members of their same sex is not summarily denied the full blessing of the Priesthood in the home. A person attracted to members of their same sex, can attend the Temple, and can participate fully in the Church respective to their gender, and worthiness. Pre-1978, Black Males were not entitled to the same full participation as their non-black brothers in the Church.

deal with this issue from the perspective of our excluding these two groups and the hurt and pain that causes.

as above the exclusion is different. I try my best to treat all with dignity and respect. I know that there are people who are quite harsh in conversation regarding all things "gay".

Do we as individuals treat either of these groups in ways that would be unbecoming of a member of the church and a disciple of Christ?

Yes I know of racist members of the Church and members of the Church who have no compassion towards those who struggle with certain things in life.

[Cobalt-70]

It's not homosexual people we disapprove of, it's homosexual behavior. There's a HUGE difference.

Which homosexual behavior? The mincing? The fashion sense? The love of Broadway show tunes?

[Hamilton Porter]

Which homosexual behavior? The mincing? The fashion sense? The love of Broadway show tunes?

More like boys kissing boys.

I don't like cars, I guess in that sense that's homosexual behavior as well (although my fashion sense sucks, I always need help).

[DBMormon]

I am asking about members of the church and the way they treat others. (Pre 1978) there were many in the church who were extremely racist in their thoughts and behavior. (obviously always going to be someone who acts inappriately) These members who act this way seem to feel they have liscense to do so becasue they see the same weaknesses shown by leaders (Certain LEaders have made extremely racist comments and I will abstain from naming them in an effort to not throw them under the bus..... years after they said them... so I assume you know which ones or you can look them up)

When Leaders speak this way many in the church see their comments as binding on the church... falsely I admit. And in doing so they (the members) carry on the same behavior. I see that happening very much today in regards to SSA. I know many good Latter-Day Saints who take liscense from comments made 20 years ago and have taken them as binding and now treat the SSA issue in a way that discriminates and mocks these people beyond where our doctrine and policy end.

In a way I am hopeful that Leaders would be more direct in discsussing prior instances where members may have adopted counsel that was inappropriate and call for members to change their paradigm and repent and recognize the things they heard or read that were wrong even if it came from a leader no longer gives them excuse to carry on that same said behavior no more.

I see this same problem with the following issues and state here clearly I am speaking of false ideas among members taught by Church leaders many years ago and not the church today. Hopefully you agree there is many times a painful lag between corrected teaching on issues and new adopted paradigms by members, and also that there are ways to speed up these problems among lay members by lay members and local leaders.

1.)intimacy between a couple - how sex is taught and percieved by LDS people growing up leading to intimacy issues once married. (the licked cupcake)

2.)SSA - hate and discrimination, Also very little allowance for their sin to be seen in the same way as other sins EX: Guy with Word of Wisdom issue is welcomed into the meetings without much of a snicker or judgement, SSA different story.

3.)Some mebers still feel justified in being racist

4.)our view of those outside our faith as less chosen

ect...

Do we confront these and how, or in fear of rocking the boat do we allow these to persist?

[Buckeye]

If SSA is not a choice, which appears to be current thinking of the church that it is indeed not a choice, then is our treatment of SSA individuals any different then our treatment of African lineage prior to 1978? If you see a difference please state in full why they are different.

Interesting question. I'll give my two cents. (BTW, I'm your friend from the Lorain ward; congratulations on pulling me back into the board)

Until recently, church leaders believed and taught that SSA is a choice and that those attractions can be cured. That position has changed. While many church leaders still believe it is a choice (see Elder Packer's conference address), the church's current official position is fairly vague. We admit that SSA is more than just a choice, and indeed more than just the result of environmental factors, but we still teach that SSA can and must be suppressed. Thus, implicit in the current teaching is a belief that SSA must at some point in the eternities be a choice. Otherwise, we undermine our foundational belief that all blessings are available to all of God's children.

The real problem is that the church cannot point to a specific time LGBT members will have agency on this issue. For most LGBT members the church currently has nothing to offer on this issue other than "wait until the day you can choose differently, which will likely be in the next life." Most LGBT, and many of their friends and family, ultimately find this reality to be untenable. After all, we are part of the eternities now. If God can change my desires in the next life, then why can't he change them here? So goes the thinking. That is why increasingly some church leaders are telling their members of our limitations and encouraging these good brothers and sisters to leave the church and seek happiness elsewhere for the time being. We just don't have the answers right now.

How does this relate to prior teachings on race? Well, the obvious parallel is that previous church leaders believed and taught that skin color could be changed in this life. Ultimately, however, we realized we have no power to change skin color through righteousness. In some circles, the idea still lingers that skin color will changed in the next life, but that is certainly not church doctrine. And most every church member of color I have spoken to believes they will have the same skin tone in the next life (see, e.g., testimonies in "Nobody Knows, the Untold Stories of Black Mormons"; http://blackmormonfilm.com/).

Does our evolution of racial views mean that we will likewise evolve on SSA view? I think so, yes. Eventually, most members will stop believing that SSA will change in the eternities. I'm heading towards that belief myself. The real difference, though, (as pointed out in other posts), is that skin color is passive, whereas SSA involves actions. Accepting the SSA will not change in the eternities, but is in fact a part of these people's eternal nature, means approving homosexual behavior in this life and finding ways to accomodate it within the gospel. To that end, I have found the Taylor Petrey's Towards a Post-Heterosexual Mormon Theology to be an important step (http://www.dialoguej..._V44N04_110.pdf)

[Edited to remove video link]

Edited August 24, 2012 by Buckeye

[CV75]

1.)intimacy between a couple - how sex is taught and percieved by LDS people growing up leading to intimacy issues once married. (the licked cupcake)

2.)SSA - hate and discrimination, Also very little allowance for their sin to be seen in the same way as other sins EX: Guy with Word of Wisdom issue is welcomed into the meetings without much of a snicker or judgement, SSA different story.

3.)Some mebers still feel justified in being racist

4.)our view of those outside our faith as less chosen

RE:

1) what's a licked cupcake? Something kinky?

2) SSA-what wrong with Senior Single Adults?

3) No wonder-- what do you expect of a "meber"?

4) I still wanna know about the cupcake

[Deborah]

Does our evolution of racial views mean that we will likewise evolve on SSA view? I think so, yes. Eventually, most members will stop believing that SSA will change in the eternities.

That it may be genetic in fact means to me that it is something that will be corrected in the resurrection. If there is a gene which is different why wouldn't it be fixed. Many behaviors are in fact attributed to genes. This is what gives the scripture that the natural man is an enemy to God more meaning.

[Buckeye]

RE:

1) what's a licked cupcake? Something kinky?

2) SSA-what wrong with Senior Single Adults?

3) No wonder-- what do you expect of a "meber"?

4) I still wanna know about the cupcake

It is fairly common in the church that YW will be taught some variation of the "licked cupcake" parable. It goes something like this: "Hi YW, I brought in some great cupcakes today (its not fast sunday). I'll pass them out, but before doing so I will lick the top of each one. Ok, who wants one now?" Then the instructor and the YW have a discussion about how "no one wants a licked cupcake" and the importance of keeping oneself chaste. These kinds of lessons are well meaning, but they often teach the false doctrine - either expressly or implicitly - that the atonement cannot fully repair a person's purity once they have violated the law of chastity. Often YW leave thinking that, if they are "licked" they can never return to the same status of purity that they had before. Again, well meaning, but false doctrine.

[Buckeye]

That it may be genetic in fact means to me that it is something that will be corrected in the resurrection. If there is a gene which is different why wouldn't it be fixed. Many behaviors are in fact attributed to genes. This is what gives the scripture that the natural man is an enemy to God more meaning.

Just because something is genetic does not mean it needs correction. Violent aggression is "natural". But so too is motherly love. Not every part of the "natural man" needs correcting. Many parts need to be nurtured. So just saying that SSA is "natural" does not tell us anything as to whether it is good or bad.

Are you saying that all genes that are different will be made uniform in the eternities? In that case, we all will have the same skin color, hair color, eye color, etc?

Edited August 24, 2012 by Buckeye

[Deborah]

So just saying that SSA is "natural" does not tell us anything as to whether it is good or bad.

No, but the behavior that results from it is against every teaching of morality and chastity. Why would a person who hopes to be perfected want to deal with feelings that will keep him from obtaining all that he can?

Are you saying that all genes that are different will be made uniform in the eternities? In that case, we all will have the same skin color, hair color, eye color, etc?

Did I say that? No. But those things which keep us from becoming Celestial will have to be overcome and I believe once they are our resurrected bodies will reflect that change. We've all seen people who have led a dissolute life and how their appearance deteriorates. Likewise by living a holy life our appearance can change.

[wenglund]

I don't know that the Church has taken a firm position whether sexual or non-sexual attractions are a matter of choice or not, or the degree to which they may be a matter of choice.

And, from what I understand, in the Church same-sex attraction (SSA) isn't treated much differently than sexual attractions to children, siblings, parent, dead people, animals, students, people who aren't married, people married to someone else, pornography, etc.

SSA is also not treated all that differently than non-sexual attractions to alcohol, tobacco products, illegal drugs, other people's property, etc.

As some have already indicated, the church isn't so much concerned with the attractions just mentioned as they are people acting on those attractions.

In some instances where the risks and stakes are high, the church has taken steps to diminish the chances of people acting on those attractions, particular while directly under its supervision. That is why teen dances are chaperoned, young women and mens programs are separated, especially when over-night activities are involved, and why openly gay youth and adults are disallowed in the boy scouts, and why known pedophiles are not permitted around children.

This seems so obvious and sensible that it puzzles me to have to explain it.

But, then, I am not intent on steadying the ark, nor prone to being tossed to and from by pop culture.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited August 24, 2012 by wenglund

[Glenn101]

Pahoran,

I think he may be talking about the fact that people with OSA (as you call it) have the hope of an eventual outlet for their desires (marriage), but those with SSA have no such hope. They have (apparently) been born with a condition that has no outlet. I'm not certain this is what he is talking about, or what connection it has to the priesthood ban, so I'll let him clarify.

Actually it is not apparent that homosexuals have been born with SSA. That seems to have become the popular politically correct belief, but it has little scientific support.

Glenn

[ERayR]

My only hope is that if they decide to make homosexual behavior OK that they also delist a couple of my favorite sins.

[Zeta-Flux]

DBMormon,

Thank you for explaining.

I am asking about members of the church and the way they treat others. (Pre 1978) there were many in the church who were extremely racist in their thoughts and behavior. (obviously always going to be someone who acts inappriately) These members who act this way seem to feel they have liscense to do so becasue they see the same weaknesses shown by leaders (Certain LEaders have made extremely racist comments and I will abstain from naming them in an effort to not throw them under the bus..... years after they said them... so I assume you know which ones or you can look them up)

My experience has been different than yours. While I've seen the occasional racist statement from past leaders, they seem no more racist than other statements made at the time. On the other hand, I've seen plenty of evidence that many of our members (both pre and post 1978) were not racist.

When Leaders speak this way many in the church see their comments as binding on the church... falsely I admit. And in doing so they (the members) carry on the same behavior. I see that happening very much today in regards to SSA. I know many good Latter-Day Saints who take liscense from comments made 20 years ago and have taken them as binding and now treat the SSA issue in a way that discriminates and mocks these people beyond where our doctrine and policy end.

I similarly have not seen this in the church today.

In a way I am hopeful that Leaders would be more direct in discsussing prior instances where members may have adopted counsel that was inappropriate and call for members to change their paradigm and repent and recognize the things they heard or read that were wrong even if it came from a leader no longer gives them excuse to carry on that same said behavior no more.

I'm pretty sure that there have been multiple recent direct discussions on this topic.

I suppose they could talk about it more. I have my own pet issues I'd like them to discuss more (like, the morality of abortion in the case of rape...I just don't understand the logic).

I see this same problem with the following issues and state here clearly I am speaking of false ideas among members taught by Church leaders many years ago and not the church today. Hopefully you agree there is many times a painful lag between corrected teaching on issues and new adopted paradigms by members, and also that there are ways to speed up these problems among lay members by lay members and local leaders.

I think members of the church have bigger, more common issues to deal with for the most part: pornography, lying, etc... And I think the brethren have more to worry about than our back-seat driving. But I have no problem with you bringing up this issue. I would recommend you look through recent talks so you have quotations you might be able to give to people struggling with this issue, if they ask for your help.

1.)intimacy between a couple - how sex is taught and percieved by LDS people growing up leading to intimacy issues once married. (the licked cupcake)

The analogy my dad used is half-an-apple with a bite out of it. Pretty dumb, I admit. But I still got the message. In fact, it was probably appropriate for me and my brothers (not for everyone).

Every analogy has its faults. If you think your kids need more information, then give it to them. If you think the analogy is incorrect/misleading in some way, explain it.

2.)SSA - hate and discrimination, Also very little allowance for their sin to be seen in the same way as other sins EX: Guy with Word of Wisdom issue is welcomed into the meetings without much of a snicker or judgement, SSA different story.

I honestly have not seen this in the church, at all. I have seen quite a bit of care and desire to help.

3.)Some mebers still feel justified in being racist

Ditto to my last comment. I served my mission in Alabama and Mississippi. Our church was one of the most integrated churches there is. While all of us are stupid at times, you really need to put it into context. I don't know a single latter-day saint who thinks black people are not people, or don't deserve equal rights, or don't want them in our church.

4.)our view of those outside our faith as less chosen

I think this is an educational issue for the youth of the church. I haven't seen it present much in the adult members. Serving a mission usually helps the young men fix that viewpoint.

Do we confront these and how, or in fear of rocking the boat do we allow these to persist?

Fear rocking the boat? Nah. How do we confront them? By persuasion, long-suffering, gentleness, meekness, love unfeigned, and so forth.

But, most importantly, we should feel moved upon by the Holy Spirit to help. You have mentioned some motes in the eyes of your brothers and sisters. Cast out the beams in your own eyes, and you can then help them cast out the motes in theirs.

Good luck,

Zeta-Flux

[DBMormon]

DBMormon,

Thank you for explaining.

My experience has been different than yours. While I've seen the occasional racist statement from past leaders, they seem no more racist than other statements made at the time. On the other hand, I've seen plenty of evidence that many of our members (both pre and post 1978) were not racist.

I similarly have not seen this in the church today.

I'm pretty sure that there have been multiple recent direct discussions on this topic.

I suppose they could talk about it more. I have my own pet issues I'd like them to discuss more (like, the morality of abortion in the case of rape...I just don't understand the logic).

I think members of the church have bigger, more common issues to deal with for the most part: pornography, lying, etc... And I think the brethren have more to worry about than our back-seat driving. But I have no problem with you bringing up this issue. I would recommend you look through recent talks so you have quotations you might be able to give to people struggling with this issue, if they ask for your help.

The analogy my dad used is half-an-apple with a bite out of it. Pretty dumb, I admit. But I still got the message. In fact, it was probably appropriate for me and my brothers (not for everyone).

Every analogy has its faults. If you think your kids need more information, then give it to them. If you think the analogy is incorrect/misleading in some way, explain it.

I honestly have not seen this in the church, at all. I have seen quite a bit of care and desire to help.

Ditto to my last comment. I served my mission in Alabama and Mississippi. Our church was one of the most integrated churches there is. While all of us are stupid at times, you really need to put it into context. I don't know a single latter-day saint who thinks black people are not people, or don't deserve equal rights, or don't want them in our church.

I think this is an educational issue for the youth of the church. I haven't seen it present much in the adult members. Serving a mission usually helps the young men fix that viewpoint.

Fear rocking the boat? Nah. How do we confront them? By persuasion, long-suffering, gentleness, meekness, love unfeigned, and so forth.

But, most importantly, we should feel moved upon by the Holy Spirit to help. You have mentioned some motes in the eyes of your brothers and sisters. Cast out the beams in your own eyes, and you can then help them cast out the motes in theirs.

Good luck,

Zeta-Flux

good thoughts