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

[CV75]

Again, well meaning, but false doctrine.

Yeech.

[wenglund]

DBM,

If you are going to presume to lecture the Church and its leaders using asinine comparisons to racism, then why do it with just SSA? Why not be the champion of all potentially harmful attractions. Why not take up the fight for equal treatment of people who are sexually attracted to children, siblings, parent, dead people, animals, students, people who aren't married, people married to someone else, pornography, etc.? Why not advocate for people attracted to alcohol, tobacco products, illegal drugs, other people's property, etc.? Don't they deserve your compassion and attention just as much as people with SSA? In short, why aren't you an equal opportunity advocate for all these attractions in presumptuously telling the Church what to do?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[smac97]

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

CFR, my friend.

My understanding is that the Church pretty much does not take a position on the cause of same-sex attraction. And to the extent we have rreceived instructions on this point, that instruction has not been the simplistic "SSA is not a choice" type of thinking you suggest.

From the Ensign:

Elder Dallin H. Oaks of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles teaches that regardless of our personal susceptibilities, we are responsible for our thoughts and behavior: “Some kinds of feelings seem to be inborn. Others are traceable to mortal experiences. Still other feelings seem to be acquired from a complex interaction of ‘nature and nurture.’ All of us have some feelings we did not choose, but the gospel of Jesus Christ teaches us that we still have the power to resist and reform our feelings (as needed) and to assure that they do not lead us to entertain inappropriate thoughts or to engage in sinful behavior” (“Same-Gender Attraction,” Ensign, Oct. 1995, 9).

then is our treatment of SSA individuals any different then our treatment of African lineage prior to 1978?

Again, CFR. Please establish a baseline of what constitutes "our treatement of SSA individuals." What are you talking about here?

If you see a difference please state in full why they are different.

Please first establish a similarity, then we can talk.

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

What an absurd question you pose. Some church members treat people with SSA poorly, some treat them with indifference or in ways that need improvement, and some (many/most, methinks) treat people with SSA as we are taught to treat them: with love and compassion.

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

Again, what an absurd question you pose. First, black people were not "excluded" from the Church. They were excluded from the priesthood. Second, people with SSA have not been categorically excluded from the Church in any way.

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?

What a dumb question. Yes, some Latter-day Saints fail to live up to their obligations as disciples of Christ.

Meanwhile, let's pose a few other questions that present similar difficulty in answering:

Is water wet?

Does the sun set in the west?

Is Lady Gaga a wee bit on the eccentric side?

I'd apologize for being snarky, but pointless drive-by postings such as this are nothing but a veiled slur at the body of the Latter-day Saints. So I'm not inclined to take this thread very seriously or treat it with my normal presumption that it was posted in good faith.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited August 24, 2012 by smac97

[DavidB]

Given that DBM statement his opion clearly as a opinion is a nitpicky cfr necessary, can't we just have an opinionated discussion, realizing as adults, that opinions differ?

[DavidB]

DBM,

If you are going to presume to lecture the Church and its leaders using asinine comparisons to racism, then why do it with just SSA? Why not be the champion of all potentially harmful attractions. Why not take up the fight for equal treatment of people who are sexually attracted to children, siblings, parent, dead people, animals, students, people who aren't married, people married to someone else, pornography, etc.? Why not advocate for people attracted to alcohol, tobacco products, illegal drugs, other people's property, etc.? Don't they deserve your compassion and attention just as much as people with SSA? In short, why aren't you an equal opportunity advocate for all these attractions in presumptuously telling the Church what to do?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Appels and oranges and it is asinine to suggest all those things should be treated the same in and by the Church. The current position of the Church is non-discrimination based on sexual orientation. The Church has spoken on the issue of homosexual attraction many times.

When you can demonstrate the Church directly and clearly speaking on the asinine topics your brought up, perhaps then you will have some ground to make such an asinine request.

[Cobalt-70]

More like boys kissing boys.

So let's take the concept of boys kissing boys. Is it really still church doctrine that this is a sin? I've got mixed intelligence on this, because I have heard of gay couples remaining in good standing in the church, while having a physical relationship that stops at kissing and other PG-13 demonstrations of affection. Doctrinally, it doesn't make much sense that it is not sinful for an unmarried man to kiss an unmarried women, yet it somehow becomes sinful if the ones doing the kissing are of the same sex. Plus, there are many biblical examples of men kissing men (even men kissing men on the neck), and that being okay.

[cwald]

Given that DBM statement his opion clearly as a opinion is a nitpicky cfr necessary, can't we just have an opinionated discussion, realizing as adults, that opinions differ?

No.

[wenglund]

Appels and oranges...

Nope. Attractions are attractions, and that is all I addressed.

...and it is asinine to suggest all those things should be treated the same in and by the Church.

Again, I am just talking about ATTRACTIONS....behaviors are a separate matter (you need to get this distinction straight if you wish to discuss things intelligently). What is asinine about suggesting that the various ATTRACTIONS should be treated much the same?

The current position of the Church is non-discrimination based on sexual orientation.

That isn't exactly correct (actually, it wildly distorts the Church's position). For an accurate depiction, read the 2010 statement issued by the Church HERE.

The Church has spoken on the issue of homosexual attraction many times.

When you can demonstrate the Church directly and clearly speaking on the asinine topics your brought up, perhaps then you will have some ground to make such an asinine request.

Are you really that unaware of the Church having spoken directly and clearly about pedophilia, incest, promiscuity, adultery, pornography, alcohol, tobacco, and stealing? Where have you been?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Cobalt-70]

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.

As I understand it, the emerging scientific consensus is that homosexuality has to do with how your brain is wired. Though you can pretend to be straight, you can't change that underlying wiring, which seems to be set in the fetal stage, and may have to do with some combination of genetics and fetal exposure to testosterone.

Edited August 24, 2012 by Cobalt-70

[Cobalt-70]

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.

I doubt that. If gay and lesbian people are "converted" at the resurrection, this basically amounts to someone going into their brain, pulling out a few wires, and making them into a different person. It is basically a Celestial lobotomy. My understanding is that at the resurrection, everything about you that makes you you will remain intact. If "not a hair of your head" will be lost, then certainly something as self-defining as your sexual orientation will not be lost, either.

Joseph Smith taught in the KFS that people who die as children will be resurrected as children, and reign as children on their thrones for ever. So it isn't outlandish that there could be lots of different types of people in the Celestial kingdom. There could be a place there for gays, lesbians, polygamists, monogamists, children, extremely intelligent chimpanzees, alien lifeforms, etc.

[wenglund]

I doubt that. If gay and lesbian people are "converted" at the resurrection, this basically amounts to someone going into their brain, pulling out a few wires, and making them into a different person.

Not in the minds of believing LDS. To them it amounts, as King Benjamin suggests, to putting off the natural man and becoming a saint and as a little child. (Mosiah 3:19) To us, redemption from the fall consists of more than just the restoration of the body, but also a change of "heart".

You , of course, are entitled to your own uninspired fiction and magical thinking.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[ERayR]

Given that DBM statement his opion clearly as a opinion is a nitpicky cfr necessary, can't we just have an opinionated discussion, realizing as adults, that opinions differ?

As long as opinions are clearly state as such and are not stated as accept fact.

Edited August 24, 2012 by ERayR

[DavidB]

wade, you clearly are not interested in intelligent adult discussion.

[Cobalt-70]

Not in the minds of believing LDS. To them it amounts, as King Benjamin suggests, to putting off the natural man and becoming a saint and as a little child. (Mosiah 3:19) To us, redemption from the fall consists of more than just the restoration of the body, but also a change of "heart".

That view presumes that homosexuality itself (that is, "SSA" for those who dare not speak its name) is a sinful and corrupt nature which needs to be repented from. My sense is that most of the "brethren," with one or two holdouts like BKP, disagree with that view. If "SSA" is not sin, then you don't need to be, and cannot be, "redeemed" from it, any more than those who experience Opposite Sex Attraction (OSA) need to be redeemed from OSA.

[Deborah]

I doubt that. If gay and lesbian people are "converted" at the resurrection, this basically amounts to someone going into their brain, pulling out a few wires, and making them into a different person.

So someone who is "wired" to have cerebral palsy will not be changed? The whole purpose of resurrection is to bring perfection in mind and body. If someone has unnatural (to God) desires then they will desire to change.

If "not a hair of your head" will be lost, then certainly something as self-defining as your sexual orientation will not be lost, either.

Given that many people don't have much hair or are born with out limbs, this doesn't have the meaning you put to it. It has reference to the idea that our physical bodies will be as perfect as they were intended had the deficiencies of mortality not entered in.

There could be a place there for gays....

No doubt there will be but they will be ministering angels if they are unwilling to be sealed to a partner of the opposite sex.

[Damien the Leper]

For me personally, asking God to 'redeem' me from my sexual orientation in favor of another is an insult to God.

[Deborah]

That view presumes that homosexuality itself (that is, "SSA" for those who dare not speak its name) is a sinful and corrupt nature which needs to be repented from.

As has been explained multiple times it is the inclination to act on impure desires that is sinful and corrupt.

My sense is that most of the "brethren," with one or two holdouts like BKP, disagree with that view.

On what do you base that? What I've heard is that the acts are still considered sinful.

If "SSA" is not sin, then you don't need to be, and cannot be, "redeemed" from it,

Since none of us are saying that it is the point is moot. It is acting on impure thoughts that is sinful.

[Damien the Leper]

What is insulting to those of us who are homosexuals, and not suffering from SSA, is that our sexual orientation is treated as some sort of illness or disorder. There is nothing wrong with us. Not only is it insulting but it is presumptuous.

Edited August 24, 2012 by Valentinus

[Deborah]

For me personally, asking God to 'redeem' me from my sexual orientation in favor of another is an insult to God.

How so? When one applies the Atonement and wants to truly become one with God, he will not desire anything that will not bring him into full fellowship with God. This emphasis on "sexual" orientation says that this is the most important attribute of human kind and yet many heterosexuals live fulfilling lives in chastity and complete celibacy. I think it is a very narrow view of any person to define them by their sexual orientation. I would certainly hate to be defined by that.

[Deborah]

What is insulting to those of us who are homosexuals, and not suffering from SSA, is that our sexual orientation is treated as some sort of illness or disorder. There is nothing wrong with us. Not only is it insulting but it is presumptuous.

No we are saying that the behavior is anathema to God. That isn't saying it is an illness or disorder but a choice.

[Daniel2]

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]

Just wanted to say, Buckeye, that this was an excellent post.

Daniel2

[Cobalt-70]

So someone who is "wired" to have cerebral palsy will not be changed? The whole purpose of resurrection is to bring perfection in mind and body. If someone has unnatural (to God) desires then they will desire to change.

Cerebral palsy is a disease. Are you saying that homosexuality is a disease? Perhaps you think left-handedness is a disease, also, and that those who suffer from that "affliction" will be restored to their "natural" state of right-handedness in the resurrection.

Given that many people don't have much hair or are born with out limbs, this doesn't have the meaning you put to it. It has reference to the idea that our physical bodies will be as perfect as they were intended had the deficiencies of mortality not entered in.

Again, I must say thank you on behalf of our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters for calling them all "deficient."

No doubt there will be but they will be ministering angels if they are unwilling to be sealed to a partner of the opposite sex.

Under 19th century Mormon theology, everyone was in essence a ministering angel to the men to whom they were sealed higher up in the chain of the celestial hierarchy, Adam being at the apex. Men, including single men, were sealed to other prominent Mormon men so that they could be closer to the "trunk" on that tree. There was a place for everybody on that tree, but everybody was in essence a "ministering angel" to somebody else. Who's to say that male-to-male sealings aren't just as important to one's status in the Celestial kingdom as male-to-female sealings?

[Deborah]

Cerebral palsy is a disease. Are you saying that homosexuality is a disease?

Homosexual behavior will keep one from becoming purified. It's as simple as that. It is the behavior we are talking about. Even people with homosexual tendencies can control behavior though some of you act like a person with those inclinations can't do so. I think that is insulting.

[Daniel2]

What a dumb question. Yes, some Latter-day Saints fail to live up to their obligations as disciples of Christ.

Meanwhile, let's pose a few other questions that present similar difficulty in answering:

Is water wet?

Does the sun set in the west?

Is Lady Gaga a wee bit on the eccentric side?

I'd apologize for being snarky, but pointless drive-by postings such as this are nothing but a veiled slur at the body of the Latter-day Saints. So I'm not inclined to take this thread very seriously or treat it with my normal presumption that it was posted in good faith.

Thanks,

-Smac

Candidly, Smac, I was actually fairly impressed with this post of yours (including the quotation by Elder Oaks, with which I have been well-acquainted), until you got to the above portion when the suggestion was made to self-reflect whether any who claim to be disciples of Christ are, in fact, behaving in a Christ-like manner. Rather than looking at the suggested self-examination with scorn, I would think that the need to be Christ-like is a question of which all of us (all of us being beggars, as King Benjamin taught) should continually ask and remind ourselves. That is, of course, one of the main reasons the sacrament is ongoingly presribed on a weekly basis, to "renew" covenants, instead of relying on a once-asked-and-answered baptismal committment.

Daniel2

Edited August 24, 2012 by Daniel2

[Cobalt-70]

As has been explained multiple times it is the inclination to act on impure desires that is sinful and corrupt.

Sexual orientation is, by definition, the "inclination" to have sexual relations with people of a particular sex. I'm sure that even Thomas S. Monson has an "inclination" to have sex with women, and he had that same inclination before he was married, because he's a straight guy. Does that make him sinful? I don't think so.