Church Making Further Movements Toward Respect For Gay Members

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Yeah, sure. Maybe by radiation.

You just got pooned.

[swfarnsworth]

For those who haven't read my comments on this before, I'm a gay member of the Church with a temple recommend, in good standing, etc.

To be perfectly honest, I'm not sure that the General Authorities realize how difficult they are making it for me to stay content with celibacy. The Church is getting more and more family-centric, with things about the family being the ultimate source of joy in life, them being together forever, the importance of parenting, etc. I can't identify with much of that, and the only consolation I got during the previous general conference were things to the effect of "we feel sorry for those of you with SSA and don't hate you.". I don't feel hated. I don't feel inherently sinful. If the Church is trying to make me not feel bad about being gay, then it is doing a good job. However, it's doing a terrible job helping me feel content. Can't the ultimate source of joy in life be something that everyone willing to obey the commandments has equal access to?

Take this quote I found on the Newsroom website: "If you are faithful, on resurrection morning—and maybe even before then—you will rise with normal attractions for the opposite sex. Some of you may wonder if that doctrine is too good to be true." That doesn't sound too good to be true at all. The idea of being changed in such a personal way like that almost sounds frightening, which is why I have no intention of even considering conversion therapy. At the same time, I don't want there to be a change in doctrine to make SSM possible, as the doctrinal shift this would necessitate would be so comprehensive that I would lose faith in and abandon the Church, and probably belief in God along with it. It wouldn't even be possible to construct a logical argument stating that the change wasn't a godless PR move, as can be done with the two official declarations.

In other words, I will probably never be completely happy.

Edited October 25, 2012 by swfarnsworth

[Saints Alive]

swfarnsworth:

Perhaps this is something you should study out in your mind further. IF you could suddenly be attracted to women, like the flip of a switch on the resurrection morning, what is it that frightens you about that? People change and grow throughout life as it is, would that not be further growth? perhaps it doesn't happen suddenly at all, but rather a little over a long period of time.

[TAO]

Read here: http://blogs.standar...-gays-lesbians/

I just skimmed through the article, however I found it interesting that it was just two years ago that Elder Packer said that God would not make someone born gay, and now the church is refuting that.

Has anyone had one of these "meetings?"

Saints Alive, Elder Packer's statement is being bent a little. He essentially said that God wouldn't suffer them to have a weakness they could not overcome. Unfortunately, being 'gay' has a different meaning to other people than it does in the church. People look at it as an unalterable physical trait, rather than a subset of actions.

[Kerry A. Shirts]

I thought of you when I saw this- as quoted and referenced in my post 4 above:

The church does not have positions on scientific questions.

I know, how could it POSSIBLY begin to have? Science would so refute the stances it would shame the church into submission entirely. Better to remain neutral and be born black in life (woops, sorry, a former LDS doctrine now rescinded just came poppin outta me - GRIN!) than actually take a stance on the ONE SURE way to actually learn something of reality instead of all the theological hoopla faith promoting fluff we get as "doctrine" from God (which ends up being changed every decade or so as God progresses in His knowledge of things and shares the "truth" with us via revelation.......

[Kerry A. Shirts]

I know, how could it POSSIBLY begin to have? Science would so refute the stances it would shame the church into submission entirely. Better to remain neutral and be born black in life (woops, sorry, a former LDS doctrine now rescinded just came poppin outta me - GRIN!) than actually take a stance on the ONE SURE way to actually learn something of reality instead of all the theological hoopla faith promoting fluff we get as "doctrine" from God (which ends up being changed every decade or so as God progresses in His knowledge of things and shares the "truth" with us via revelation....... After all, it seems to me that God cannot possibly give us the skinny on scientific matters if new research refutes His revelation of knowledge, so it is wisest for him to remain neutral through His church. That's the very safest bet to be sure.....

[swfarnsworth]

swfarnsworth:

Perhaps this is something you should study out in your mind further. IF you could suddenly be attracted to women, like the flip of a switch on the resurrection morning, what is it that frightens you about that? People change and grow throughout life as it is, would that not be further growth? perhaps it doesn't happen suddenly at all, but rather a little over a long period of time.

If I had a magic pill in front of my right now that would make me straight, I wouldn't take it. I'm perfectly happy as I am, even if I'm most certainly not happy with the results of it.

[tyler90az]

I hope this is true! Kudos for doing what is right and showing that decency exists among us yet again. If any people on this earth should be decnt, it should surely be the Saints of God.

[Judd]

Read here: http://blogs.standard.net/the-political-surf/2012/10/22/lds-church-making-further-movements-toward-respect-for-gays-lesbians/

I just skimmed through the article, however I found it interesting that it was just two years ago that Elder Packer said that God would not make someone born gay, and now the church is refuting that.

Has anyone had one of these "meetings?"

I don't believe that was what President Packer was meaning. It seemed (to me) he was referring to the eternal perspective and how all things are possible through the atonement.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Read here: http://blogs.standard.net/the-political-surf/2012/10/22/lds-church-making-further-movements-toward-respect-for-gays-lesbians/

I just skimmed through the article, however I found it interesting that it was just two years ago that Elder Packer said that God would not make someone born gay, and now the church is refuting that.

Has anyone had one of these "meetings?"

It is much more complicated than being "born gay"...that position allows people to not think nor take any responsibility for actions.

[Rivers]

swfarnsworth:

Perhaps this is something you should study out in your mind further. IF you could suddenly be attracted to women, like the flip of a switch on the resurrection morning, what is it that frightens you about that? People change and grow throughout life as it is, would that not be further growth? perhaps it doesn't happen suddenly at all, but rather a little over a long period of time.

I sure wouldn't want to suddenly have homosexual feelings in the resurrection. I can't see why a a gay person would want their orientation changed either.

Edited October 26, 2012 by Rivers

[Rivers]

I don't believe that was what President Packer was meaning. It seemed (to me) he was referring to the eternal perspective and how all things are possible through the atonement.

If you read Packer's talk, you'll notice that soon after he makes the controversial statement he quotes the scripture in 1 Cor. 10:13 which says

There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it

So in that context, I think Packer was simply saying that anybody can overcome temptation. In the case of those with SSA, they are capable of living the law of chastity despite the feelings they have.

[Tacenda]

For those who haven't read my comments on this before, I'm a gay member of the Church with a temple recommend, in good standing, etc.

To be perfectly honest, I'm not sure that the General Authorities realize how difficult they are making it for me to stay content with celibacy. The Church is getting more and more family-centric, with things about the family being the ultimate source of joy in life, them being together forever, the importance of parenting, etc. I can't identify with much of that, and the only consolation I got during the previous general conference were things to the effect of "we feel sorry for those of you with SSA and don't hate you.". I don't feel hated. I don't feel inherently sinful. If the Church is trying to make me not feel bad about being gay, then it is doing a good job. However, it's doing a terrible job helping me feel content. Can't the ultimate source of joy in life be something that everyone willing to obey the commandments has equal access to?

Take this quote I found on the Newsroom website: "If you are faithful, on resurrection morning—and maybe even before then—you will rise with normal attractions for the opposite sex. Some of you may wonder if that doctrine is too good to be true." That doesn't sound too good to be true at all. The idea of being changed in such a personal way like that almost sounds frightening, which is why I have no intention of even considering conversion therapy. At the same time, I don't want there to be a change in doctrine to make SSM possible, as the doctrinal shift this would necessitate would be so comprehensive that I would lose faith in and abandon the Church, and probably belief in God along with it. It wouldn't even be possible to construct a logical argument stating that the change wasn't a godless PR move, as can be done with the two official declarations.

In other words, I will probably never be completely happy.

It has happened before. If the rest of the world came down hard on prejudices against gays, the church will one day concede. Just like it did with blacks in the priesthood and ending polygamy on earth. Both of which had prophets stating it would never change here on earth.

[Kenngo1969]

It has happened before. If the rest of the world came down hard on prejudices against gays, the church will one day concede. Just like it did with blacks in the priesthood and ending polygamy on earth. Both of which had prophets stating it would never change here on earth.

I disagree. (I was about to word that more strongly, but ... )

[california boy]

I am glad that the church has softened in its understanding of what it is like being gay. Whether I was born gay or caused by my mother using the wrong brand of lipstick when she was pregnant is really unimportant to me. Does a blind man care whether he was created blind by God or or became blind in the womb by___________(fill in the blank for the latest scientific thinking)? Should members of the church treat the blind person any differently because of how he became blind? Would the blind person feel less blind if he knew that God created him that way?

Have you ever watched or read the story of Romeo and Juliet and thought that Romeo had no business wanting to marry Juliet? After all his parents and society told him he should not fall in love with her and certainly should not marry her. Did he make the wrong choice? And what if his family and society wanted Romeo to marry a male friend. Should he marry the male friend that he had no love or slightest interest in rather than Juliet? What if the choices give to Romeo was to marry his male friend or be celibate his entire life and then when he died he could marry his male friend for all eternity, but he would want to by then.

I am not trying to justify being gay. Nor am I asking the church to change its position. I am only trying to help those that are not gay understand what the church lays out for a gay member. I hope that helps maybe one person on this forum further understand the situation gay members find themselves in. Maybe that will help one person understand what swfarnsworth is going through and ever other gay member that wants to stay active in the church deals with.

At one point in my life I would have gladly taken a magic pill to make me straight. But would I now? Nope. It is too much about who I am deep inside. That must be hard for a straight person to understand.

[TAO]

It has happened before. If the rest of the world came down hard on prejudices against gays, the church will one day concede. Just like it did with blacks in the priesthood and ending polygamy on earth. Both of which had prophets stating it would never change here on earth.

Source please? I know Brigham said precisely opposite for the first =p.

[Tacenda]

I disagree. (I was about to word that more strongly, but ... )

Which part do you disagree? And you can word it however you want. I've developed a thick skin while on this board. Edited October 26, 2012 by Tacenda

[Sky]

There were two speakers from this month's General Conference that talked openly about same-sex attraction issues, Elder's Neil L. Anderson and Dallin H. Oaks, respectively.

http://www.lds.org/g...-faith?lang=eng

http://www.lds.org/g...ildren?lang=eng

It may not be exactly what we want to hear (whatever that is), but they are apostles, so we better listen. I think the fact that this subject was even mentioned is significant in itself. I think we will continue to see a gradual but steady outpouring of greater understanding and respect towards those who deal with this issue in the Church. But it will take some more time. Acts of homosexuality will always be considered a sin, but the harsh language that was sometimes used in the past is falling out of favor.

[Lightbearer]

It has happened before. If the rest of the world came down hard on prejudices against gays, the church will one day concede. Just like it did with blacks in the priesthood and ending polygamy on earth. Both of which had prophets stating it would never change here on earth.

Unfortunately for you position, you are not talking about the same thing. I know it is politically correct to compare civil rights for blacks and homosexual "rights"... but it is not the same thing. The blacks and the priesthood and Plural marriage were not sins, but homosexuality is, it is an abomination, it is a weakness for some that must be overcome just as being a "natural man" must be overcome by all. Unless both yield unto the enticings of the holy spirit and become a saint and put off the natural man (meaning the sins of the flesh) then he will remain an enemy to God forever and ever. It is a fantasy to think that the Church of God will ever condone homosexuality. Sorry but it will never happen worlds without end. Just as no other sin which is unrepentant will allow anyone into the kingdom of God. You cannot rationalize it away. Well did Isaiah say:

"Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!" (Old Testament | Isaiah 5:20)

[mfbukowski]

I know, how could it POSSIBLY begin to have? Science would so refute the stances it would shame the church into submission entirely. Better to remain neutral and be born black in life (woops, sorry, a former LDS doctrine now rescinded just came poppin outta me - GRIN!) than actually take a stance on the ONE SURE way to actually learn something of reality instead of all the theological hoopla faith promoting fluff we get as "doctrine" from God (which ends up being changed every decade or so as God progresses in His knowledge of things and shares the "truth" with us via revelation.......

You seriously need some philosophy classes.

[BCSpace]

The answer, as usual, is found in the scriptures. Ether 12:27 in this case.. Homosexuality may or may not be inborn, but it makes no difference at all whether it is or isn't. It's still sin and it must be overcome. The doctrine on homosexuality has not changed one whit. The Church has merely presented a different face to match the times in the best way possible without compromising the doctrine.

[MormonMason]

If I had a magic pill in front of my right now that would make me straight, I wouldn't take it. I'm perfectly happy as I am, even if I'm most certainly not happy with the results of it.

Ah...therein seemingly lies the problem. You don't want to consider Heavenly Father's plan as expounded by the Scriptures (male and female in marriage) and understood by General Authorities, and apparently are perfectly happy in believing the message of the Gay Agenda. You prefer to believe some variant of the lie mentioned by Elder Hafen, do you? You prefer not to take any of the advice offered by him?

Should you change your mind later on, there is something else you might want to consider. The Spartans often had real challenges complying with the law of marriage to women after being so long involved with men in mandatory gay relationships with their fellow soldiers, with whom they were paired up from childhood. One of the methods they had to use was to shave down the women and dress them like men just to get the young men closer to getting used to the idea of having relations with a female.

Perhaps you might possibly like a more masculine-looking female? I mean no disrespect and I am being perfectly serious about this latter suggestion. Could that possibly help you in future, should you change your mind and decide actually to live Heavenly Father's plan for your life? Or, would you instead wish to remain separate and single throughout eternity in the next life and make yourself a eunuch (graphic image for celibacy) for the kingdom of heaven in this life?

Mormon Mason has left the thread.

[harfad]

My point was that whatever we are in the flesh at birth is the product of a mutual agreement between our Heavenly Father and our premortal self (spirit), just as whatever we ultimately become is the product of mutual agreement between our Heavenly Father and us. It isn't all exclusively Heavenly Father's doing. That goes for any genetic permutation that might be found in mortality, including the examples you offered. That doesn’t necessarily go for anything that might happen to us outside of our or Heavenly Father’s will.

Do you have some scriptural backing for that teaching, or something that God has revealed? I was thinking something along the lines of Moses 6:55, "Inasmuch as thy children are conceived in sin, ... sin conceiveth in their hearts, ...". I was wondering that you might have had the same scripture in mind.

[Storm Rider]

I missed the memo from the Church that we were disrespecting gays. Can someone point me to that? I keep missing this juicy morsels where I can be offended or properly offend others by citing them.

Of course, this could just be one of those obnoxious examples where a self-identified victim takes offense because another human has the temerity to think differently than they do and thus takes offense for being "disrespected". Everyone should know that everyone can think, say, and do anything they choose as long as they think, say, and do exactly as the victim thinks, says, and does.

[CV75]

Do you have some scriptural backing for that teaching, or something that God has revealed? I was thinking something along the lines of Moses 6:55, "Inasmuch as thy children are conceived in sin, ... sin conceiveth in their hearts, ...". I was wondering that you might have had the same scripture in mind.

I was thinking of Acts 17:26 in relation to our natural (genetic) or nurtured (environmental) makeup in this life. But now that I think of it, Ether 12:12 would apply in that we knew what we were getting into when we decided to enter this second estate (and your reference as well, about how those of us who grow up into the years of accountability are bound to sin in our imperfection).

But I question whether SSA constitutes a “weakness” or a “sin conceived in the heart.” Temptation itself is not a weakness or sin; it is weakness that makes us vulnerable to its enticing and it is sin to give in to it. Sexual attraction of any variety might become a weakness when it translates into lust and distraction from the Spirit, and then sin when it is acted on. I also think it may be a weakness, a sin or an illness, to pervert or short-circuit feelings of love and affection (or even other emotions) into lustful desires, depending on the details. I do not think that sexual feelings in and of themselves are necessarily lust, but the meaning and priority we place upon them will attest to where the treasure of our heart is.

Edited October 26, 2012 by CV75