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

[happy]

The question is - "Do you feel the opinions of the extremely conservative LDS views of people here that post in threads like these do damage to members of the church who come on here seeking understanding but also are struggling in a way that they come here with some amount of fragilty"? In other words would someone with SSA be uplifted and encouraged by those comments or hurt and discouraged even assuming they are trying to put off the natural man?

You could take this question and match any other struggle or sin. Is someone addicted to smoking going to feel uplifted if they came here and saw a discussion on the Word of Wisdom? Is someone who has committed adultery going to be uplifted by a post condemning such behaviors?

Here is a honest question. Why should the sin of Homosexuality be given special treatment?

[smac97]

Now i call for CFR. Elder Oaks and Holland both indicate that SSA does not prevent anyone from all the blessings of God. SSA is part of who they are.

I do not think Elder Oaks or Elder Holland or any other general authority has posited that same-sex attraction is an innate characteristic of some of God's children. Do you have references that prove me wrong?

We all struggle with temptations of the flesh of one sort or another, and in varying degrees. Some people struggle with substance addiction (alcohol, tobacco, illicit drugs, etc.). Some with anger, or physical or verbal abuse. Some with vanity or pride. Some with dishonesty.

And then there are the temptations relating to sexuality. Some are tempted to commit adultery, or to have sex outside the bonds of marriage, or to view pornography, or to have inappropriate sexual contact with others.

These are all temptations of the flesh, but some of them manage to eke out a special dispensation from people both within and without the Church. One of those is, you guessed it, same-sex attraction.

The problem, however, is that it doesn't work as far as the Restored Gospel goes to suggest that same-sex attraction is anything other than a temptation to be resisted. I therefore believe it is a rank falsehood to suggest that same-sex attraction is an innate trait of some of God's children which will be vindicated and sanctified at some point in the future. It is instead a temptation of the flesh to be resisted, a condition to be endured while living as a natural man in a fallen, carnal state.

It is a condition not materially different from any of the other myriad forms of temptations relating to sexuality. No Latter-day Saint would ever think of saying "Hey, married dude who is thinking of cheating on your wife: I know that the Law of Chastity is a toughy, but don't worry! At some point God will let you off the leash, and you'll be free to commit adultery to your heart's content! Your feelings are normal. It's part of who you are, so cheating on your wife will be okay in the future, just not now."

Sounds absurd, right? Because this reasoning is absurd. So why do folks apply it to people with same-sex attraction? The answer is that same-sex attraction is currently enjoying sociopolitical popularity, so some people both outside and inside the Church capitulate to popular notions of morality rather than turning to revealed truths about morality.

In sum, I utterly reject the notion that the temptations of the flesh we all deal with in one way or another are "part of who we are." We are the children of God, living in a telestial world. We are exposed to temptations, we are given the choice to become "natural" men and women who are enemies to God, or to resist those temptations, and in so doing leave behind the "natural man" and reconcile ourselves with God. So when we speak about and to our brothers and sisters who face the sociopolitically popular temptation of same-sex attraction, we do them no favors by telling them things like "SSA is part of who they are."

With or Without SSA doesn't reflect at all the spiritual man they are or can be. Even if only speaking of the eternal soul, one has no quote from a recent LDS leader saying this SSA absolutely goes away the moment we cross the veil.

So there will be same-sex marriage on the Other Side? Is that what you are suggesting?

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited August 25, 2012 by smac97

[smac97]

There are Latter-Day Saints who firmly hold onto old false traditions

What "old false traditions" are you talking about here?

What evidence do you have as to the pervasiveness of these "old false traditions" in the body of the Church?

and do not adopt better paradigms

What "better paradigms" are you talking about?

I sense you are being coy. "Better paradigms" seems to be code for capitulating to currently popular notions of morality relative to same-sex attraction.

becasue in the church we don't hit the troublesome issues in a way that makes it clear to them that a change in their mindset is needed.

What on earth are you talking about? What "troublesome issues?" What "change in their mindset" are you referring to here?

Are you saying that the General Authorities have not addressed same-sex attraction?

Have you perchance heard of the manual, "God Loveth His Children?" "Understanding and Helping Those Who Have Homosexual Problems: Suggestions for

Ecclesiastical Leaders" is another one.

Are you aware of the various general conference talks about this topic?

These false concepts divide, hurt, discriminate, and break ........ where am I wrong?

Oh brother. What "false concepts" are you talking about? Cut the vague coyness, please.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited August 25, 2012 by smac97

[smac97]

honest question coming up.

The question is - "Do you feel the opinions of the extremely conservative LDS views of people here that post in threads like these do damage to members of the church who come on here seeking understanding but also are struggling in a way that they come here with some amount of fragilty"?

Um, what "opinions" are you talking about? The coy schtick is getting tiresome. I wish you would just come out and say what you mean rather than speak in coded phrases, the meanings of which are opaque to just about everyone but you.

In other words would someone with SSA be uplifted and encouraged by those comments or hurt and discouraged even assuming they are trying to put off the natural man?

Since you are not identifying which "comments" you have in mind, there's no way to know.

-Smac

Edited August 25, 2012 by smac97

[smac97]

You could take this question and match any other struggle or sin. Is someone addicted to smoking going to feel uplifted if they came here and saw a discussion on the Word of Wisdom? Is someone who has committed adultery going to be uplifted by a post condemning such behaviors?

Here is a honest question. Why should the sin of Homosexuality be given special treatment?

Here's my take: Same-sex attraction is given special treatment because it is sociopolitically popular, and because some folks are more concerned about being popular in the eyes of the World than about doing what is right in the eyes of God.

Thanks,

-Smac

[ERayR]

honest question coming up.

The question is - "Do you feel the opinions of the extremely conservative LDS views of people here that post in threads like these do damage to members of the church who come on here seeking understanding but also are struggling in a way that they come here with some amount of fragilty"? In other words would someone with SSA be uplifted and encouraged by those comments or hurt and discouraged even assuming they are trying to put off the natural man?

It is always a disservice when someone is burdened with misinformation and after verbalizing that misinformation and asking for an opinion to not be honest in your reply. You can be kind but to be honest, you must be candid. To perpetuate false information just to make someone feel good is wrong.

[Freedom]

Some feel that, if they are felt to feel guilty for their natural inclinations towards sin, that they are somehow being violated. This comes from the adage that we should not judge anybody and let everybody live their life and God may smite them with a few stripes but in the end we will all be happy. All of us struggle with temptations that will keep us out of heave, will ruin our families and careers and will hamper our freedom. Just because society considers something ok does not make it ok.

[ERayR]

Some feel that, if they are felt to feel guilty for their natural inclinations towards sin, that they are somehow being violated. This comes from misunderstanding the adage that we should not judge anybody and let everybody live their life and God may smite them with a few stripes but in the end we will all be happy. All of us struggle with temptations that will keep us out of heave, will ruin our families and careers and will hamper our freedom. Just because society considers something ok does not make it ok.

Hope you don't mind the change I made to your wording.

[Damien the Leper]

To me, this opinion is an insult to God.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

That's because you don't understand.

[happy]

Hope you don't mind the change I made to your wording.

Judge not less ye be judged is the most misused term in Biblical history. There are dozens of passages where we are instructed to stand up against sin and to call out those who do it. The passage often quoted is referring to hypocritical judgement. Judge not unless you accept such judgement yourself. In other words, if you are committing adultery and then accuse someone of the same crime, and condemn them, THAT is what we are instructed to not do. We judge as part of our basic survival skills and we are to judge in some ways in proclaiming the gospel. If your brother sins against you, rebuke them. Stand not with sin, but stand against it.

[Damien the Leper]

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.

There are many narrow views. One of which is held by many LDS. For me, the Atonement does not correct anything but perfects an existing circumstance.

[Damien the Leper]

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

According to whom exactly? The LDS church only speaks for God in its limited capacity. Therefore, your LDS rules not only do not apply but they are invalid.

[Damien the Leper]

In your politically correct world view, what term would be acceptable for describing an attraction to things that are spiritually and physically unhealthy and contrary to the natural and eternal order of things?

Whatever your answer, my interest isn't in political correctness but working towards what is best and aligning my thoughts and ways and beliefs with Christ. If that offends you, then that is your problem, not mine.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Whose worldview? The LDS? That would be irrelevant. You know it and I do.

[Damien the Leper]

Nevermind.

Edited August 25, 2012 by Valentinus

[Freedom]

Hope you don't mind the change I made to your wording.

I was thinking of these verses from 2 Nephi:

8 And there shall also be many which shall say: ^aEat, drink, and be ^bmerry; nevertheless, fear God—he will ^cjustify in committing a little ^dsin; yea, ^elie a little, take the advantage of one because of his words, dig a ^fpit for thy neighbor; there is ^gno harm in this; and do all these things, for tomorrow we die; and if it so be that we are guilty, God will beat us with a few stripes, and at last we shall be saved in the kingdom of God.

9 Yea, and there shall be many which shall teach after this manner, ^afalse and vain and ^bfoolish ^cdoctrines, and shall be puffed up in their hearts, and shall seek deep to hide their counsels from the Lord; and their works shall be in the dark.

So I might replace 'from misunderstanding the adage' with "from the false adage"

[Cobalt-70]

None of those traits have anything to do with sexual preference. They do not identify as a heterosexual Celtics fan etc.

Do you know any Celtics fans?

[Cobalt-70]

Neither of you have answered the question. The question is why do homosexual people self identify by sexual orientation?

Why wouldn't they? If you have a trait, why would you not identify yourself as having that trait?

[DavidB]

You could take this question and match any other struggle or sin. Is someone addicted to smoking going to feel uplifted if they came here and saw a discussion on the Word of Wisdom? Is someone who has committed adultery going to be uplifted by a post condemning such behaviors?

Here is a honest question. Why should the sin of Homosexuality be given special treatment?

Do you differentiate between homosexual attraction and homosexual activities? Is a person who acknowledges they are attracted to members of their same sex homosexual, even if the person is completely celibate having never even held hands with another person?

I think DBM has distinguished between what he, and many others, refer to as Same Sex Attraction which the same persons distinguish from homosexuality i.e. the act of fullfilling the same sex attraction with members of the same sex.

What do you mean with "special treatment"?

Here's my take: Same-sex attraction is given special treatment because it is sociopolitically popular, and because some folks are more concerned about being popular in the eyes of the World than about doing what is right in the eyes of God.

Thanks,

-Smac

What do you mean by special treatment?

----------------------------------------------------------------

Here are few quotes from Elder Oaks

Official Statement

Same-Gender Attraction

ELDER OAKS: You’re my son. You will always be my son, and I’ll always be there to help you.

The distinction between feelings or inclinations on the one hand, and behavior on the other hand, is very clear. It’s no sin to have inclinations that if yielded to would produce behavior that would be a transgression. The sin is in yielding to temptation. Temptation is not unique. Even the Savior was tempted.

PUBLIC AFFAIRS: So you are saying that homosexual feelings are controllable?

ELDER OAKS: Yes, homosexual feelings are controllable. ...

We’re not talking about a unique challenge here. We’re talking about a common condition of mortality. We don’t understand exactly the ‘why,’ or the extent to which there are inclinations or susceptibilities and so on. But what we do know is that feelings can be controlled and behavior can be controlled. The line of sin is between the feelings and the behavior. The line of prudence is between the susceptibility and the feelings. We need to lay hold on the feelings and try to control them to keep us from getting into a circumstance that leads to sinful behavior.

Side note, if Edler Oaks refers to ssa as "common condition of mortality" then can ssa be honestly referred too as disorder or abnormal or unnatural?

[Alan]

I think the whole premise of the heading to this thread is false. "If" is a big word.

In my view SSA is a choice and is controllable.......no question.

The problem occurs when people have already made the choice, and have already failed to control the attraction. These people are then in a very difficult position as they have a Goliath in their lives which is very hard to deal with. However, even in this situation change can be made. There are two men in my ward who have been through this and are now happily married with children.

[Storm Rider]

I agree that there is reason for all to stand against sin, all sin. None should accept the desire to sin in ourselves, but we should be compassionate toward everyone else who also suffers from a carnal, sinful nature.

This topic, for me, is so very confusing. I would agree that no one wakes up wanting to have SSA; however, we have brothers and sisters who have this strong attraction. For those who do not suffer from SSA it is easy to say just to not sin. However, when said to someone with SSA what we are actually saying is you may never, for the rest of your entire mortal life, have a relationship with someone you love.

For so many it is a simple statement that quickly rolls off the tongue, but it paints a very bleak picture for those who have SSA. When we look at our sinful nature we think of being honest, honoring our wedding vows, being chaste while we wait for the special someone to come along, or even honoring the WofW. None of these, not one, compares to the sin of engaging in the temptations of SSA. This is something that is innate in this mortal creature; they cannot just separate it as if it was a different characteristic from who they are. They are gay. Everyone else has hope of having a mate that we can spend the rest of our lives with and eternity. What hope are we giving to those who suffer from SSA in this life?

Guys, I am sorry, but we offer very little hope for this life. That is the a fact. However, the gospel of Jesus Christ is not about this life so much as the life to come. For those who suffer from SSA, I know of nothing that can be more difficult or more demanding of character, integrity, and faith as to live a chaste life knowing that God has something great in store for you. The question is do you want to live by faith or not? This is the question that all must answer and you are no different. For those who remain faithful while suffering from SSA I believe that God has his richest blessings in store.

All our prayers should be with and for those with SSA. I firmly believe their path is infinitely harder than everyone else's.

[DavidB]

I think the whole premise of the heading to this thread is false. "If" is a big word.

In my view SSA is a choice and is controllable.......no question.

Question: If you consider yourself to heterosexual, can you identify in your life when you choose live a heterosexual lifestyle over a homosexual lifestyle?

ELDER WICKMAN: Whether it is nature or nurture really begs the important question, and a preoccupation with nature or nurture can, it seems to me, lead someone astray from the principles that Elder Oaks has been describing here. Why somebody has a same-gender attraction… who can say?

separately the following seems useful to the discussion:

ELDER WICKMAN: One question that might be asked by somebody who is struggling with same-gender attraction is, “Is this something I’m stuck with forever? What bearing does this have on eternal life? If I can somehow make it through this life, when I appear on the other side, what will I be like?”

Gratefully, the answer is that same-gender attraction did not exist in the pre-earth life and neither will it exist in the next life. It is a circumstance that for whatever reason or reasons seems to apply right now in mortality, in this nano-second of our eternal existence.

[Deborah]

For me, the Atonement does not correct anything but perfects an existing circumstance.

Amazing how we can rationalize our behavior to make ourselves ok when we aren't. My thought is that if you have to rationalize the behavior then it isn't ok. How can you say the Atonement doesn't correct anything? If that is so then what is the purpose of repentance and wiping the slate clean?

[Deborah]

According to whom exactly? The LDS church only speaks for God in its limited capacity. Therefore, your LDS rules not only do not apply but they are invalid.

??? Limited capacity. I have no idea what that means. When the church speaks about sin there is no limiting capacity. It is speaking for God.

[Damien the Leper]

Amazing how we can rationalize our behavior to make ourselves ok when we aren't. My thought is that if you have to rationalize the behavior then it isn't ok. How can you say the Atonement doesn't correct anything? If that is so then what is the purpose of repentance and wiping the slate clean?

Sincerest apologies. I re-read my post and realized the mistake. The Atonement isn't in place to correct everything.

There is no rationalization or justification needed or necessary concerning my sexual orientation.

[Damien the Leper]

??? Limited capacity. I have no idea what that means. When the church speaks about sin there is no limiting capacity. It is speaking for God.

When the church speaks it speaks for God only to the LDS. LDS theology, doctrine, moral ethics, sexual ethics, etc. are not binding on the whole worl. That would be a silly assumption.