Mormonsandgays

[Scott Lloyd]

They are flawed men, it is all God has to work with. What impresses me is what all our leaders accomplish despite their weaknesse.

Let's be clear here. Elder Packer did not say anything improper or unreasonable in that talk, the efforts by his adversaries to twist his words notwithstanding.

[Linda]

Let's be clear here. Elder Packer did not say anything improper or unreasonable in that talk, the efforts by his adversaries to twist his words notwithstanding.

What Packer said has obviously and here to read:

http://www.connellodonovan.com/images/youngmen1.jpg

http://www.connellodonovan.com/images/youngmen2.jpg

http://www.connellodonovan.com/images/youngmen3.jpg

[Scott Lloyd]

If the guy was trying to rape the other guy, I could understand the need to take a swipe, in the name of self-defense. But if if was something less than that, I think a simple but firm "no thank you" or "please stop" would be more appropriate. I think this applies regardless of the gender or sexual orientation of the individuals involved. Of course nobody was there to know what really happened, so we kind of have to form some of our own conclusions and use our best judgement.

From what I know of President Packer, a man of God and an apostle of Christ, he would not advocate or condone unnecessary violence.

[Sky]

From what I know of President Packer, a man of God and an apostle of Christ, he would not advocate or condone unnecessary violence.

I agree. But that doesn't seem to deter the critics from continuing to repeat it. President Packer always gets a bad rap. I believe he is far kinder and gentler than the mean grumpy old gus that he's made out to be.

[Senator]

A better way to end it would be something along these lines:

"I didn't really mean 'agree to disagree.' I just used that phrase because I was tired of getting bested in the debate and wanted to end the conversation.'"

Scott,

Drop it already!!

My appologies to tyler90az and his thread.

Edited December 8, 2012 by Senator

[DavidB]

So your unspoken acknowledgement appears to be that there may be extreme circumstances when forcible resistance is the only viable option. That is the gist of what Elder Packer said.

You may be inclined to put the least charitable construction possible on his words, but I am not bound by your cynicism.

Please explain. What are "extreme circumstances"?

Please draw a hypothetical character sketch of extreme circumstances?

Do the "extreme circumstances" include violence by those who find homosexual behavior repellant and deplorable, even if advancement was asking the person on a date or saying the person is cute?

Edited December 8, 2012 by DavidB

[Kemara]

Yes I did ready your statements.

1. If you read my statement then you did not understand them.

2. If you read my statements and understand them then why are you continuing to misrepresent them.

3. No need to shout, remember your call for civility.

4. All previous and current CFR's from you have been answered and I continue to maintain that you have attempted to justify your lifestyle choice simply because you did, as per the references provided. I thought you said you read my statements?

5. My initial CFR required you to show "that I seem to think you need to have the church’s approval for you choice", the key word here is the church. You have failed to answer the CFR with your two references, please provide a referece or apologise.

6. My second CFR remains unanswered, please provide a reference where I said that "you did seek the approval of the church", the key word here is the church. Please provide a referece or apologise.

7. My third CFR remains unanswered, please provide a reference where I said that "you said that Christ approved of gay marriage". Please provide a referece or apologise.

I believe that California Boy has tried to justify his lifestyle and I have shown where he said I provided the "correctly summarised facts" of his position. He made the statements that were "correctly summarised" by me in a failed attempt to justify his homosexual lifestyle and not to simply say we don't know what Christ thinks about gays or gay marriage because Christ was silent on this issue while on this earth for 33 years. Reference to the dictionary definition of the word 'justify' and California boys statements clearly show that my belief is correct.

In conclusion, while Christ was silent on the oxymoronic "homosexual marriage" issue, just as He was on all other labels a person could dream up and attach to marriage, He did define what marriage is, and it is between a man and a woman.

Sigh. You are out of the thread.

[Scott Lloyd]

Please explain. What are "extreme circumstances"?

Please draw a hypothetical character sketch of extreme circumstances?

Do the "extreme circumstances" include violence by those who find homosexual behavior repellant and deplorable, even if advancement was asking the person on a date or saying the person is cute?

Do you really think Elder Packer was advocating violence under such circumstances?

If so, you are even more cynical (and less sensible) than I thought.

[Chaos]

Everybody needs to get back on the topic of the church's current position statement. The thread is not about arguing over someone's old talk. The thread will be closed if this continues.

[california boy]

I believe that California Boy has tried to justify his lifestyle and I have shown where he said I provided the "correctly summarized facts" of his position. He made the statements that were "correctly summarized" by me in a failed attempt to justify his homosexual lifestyle and not to simply say we don't know what Christ thinks about gays or gay marriage because Christ was silent on this issue while on this earth for 33 years. Reference to the dictionary definition of the word 'justify' and California boys statements clearly show that my belief is correct.

In conclusion, while Christ was silent on the oxymoronic "homosexual marriage" issue, just as He was on all other labels a person could dream up and attach to marriage, He did define what marriage is, and it is between a man and a woman.

If the statement that I posted makes you think that I need to justify my homosexual behavior, then obviously you just desperately want to believe something that is simply not true. Let me repost what I wrote about your illusions.

Let me simply say, I am gay. I am in an immoral relationship with a man who is the love of my life. He is as much a part of me as any person can be. The church condemns the choice I have made. I will not be going to the Celestial Kingdom. I have no desire to be eternally married to a woman for the eternities. Therefore telling the person in my life that I can no longer be a part of his life and living a life alone without the person I love so dearly does not make one whit of difference. The choices I have made have been the right ones for me. I have no interest in justifying the choices I have made to you or anyone else. I have never pretended otherwise.

Now does that post sound like someone in need of justifying gay behavior? Choosing to have a loving relationship with the person that I share my life with clearly is a choice I am comfortable with and have no regrets about. I am obviously very frustrated with your need to misrepresent my position on this matter. Nothing I can say seems to change your mind for some reason. If this post is not enough for you to give up your delusional belief that I need to justify my behavior than obviously nothing will.

One of the constant misbeliefs by some church members is the thinking that gay people desperately want to justify their choices they have made and therefor that is the reason they want marriage. It simply is wishful thinking viewing life from a Mormon perspective and not a gay perspective. If you want to understand why gay people want to marry, just consider what your life would be like of you were not allowed to marry the person you love. If you can understand that then you can understand why gays want the right to marry. Is it so hard to believe that you can be gay and be happy?

Since this subject is not what this thread is about and in keeping with Chaos counsel, this will be my last post on your absurd quest.

[Flyonthewall]

What Packer said has obviously and here to read:

http://www.connellod...s/youngmen1.jpg

http://www.connellod...s/youngmen2.jpg

http://www.connellod...s/youngmen3.jpg

Even using the links you provide, there is nothing there that advocates violence against gays. What he does advocate is to protect one's self.

Now there are those with evil intent that will equate "protect one's self" with promoting violence against gays but that says more about them than the owner of those words.

The church has come out in an official capacity with this new website, and advocates love and compassion for gays. However instead of looking at the current state of affairs, some wish to ignore the plain message of the here and now, and twist the words of yesteryear.

[canard78]

I am curious. To those who find the use of various practices considered perverse in a conversation about homosexuality inappropriate, are there any practices considered immoral that you would be okay being used for those who still consider external homosexual behaviour immoral to illustrate points? If so, could you list them please for the benefit of those attempting to make civil but relevant arguments.

I've said previously that I accept that homosexual activity is outside the Law of Chastity. The Law of Chastity is to not have sex with anyone other than your legal spouse and LDS only define marriage as between a man and a woman. Homosexual acts are only considered immoral by LDS because their marriage isn't recognised and therefore their sexual activity.

The conversation could therefore be moved to why LDS only recognise marriage between a man and woman. If any analogies or comparisons need to be made it would be to a straight couple in a non-married relationship (e.g. what some call a 'common law marriage', not yet legally recognised in UK, but moving that way).

The other comparison could be the Word of Wisdom. Certain substances are considered 'in' and others 'out.' Green Tea is (generally) considered 'out,' despite many cultures considering it to have health benefits. In China my colleagues think it's very amusing that I turn down Green Tea due to my church's code of health. All that would need to happen is for Green Tea to be 're-classified' and I'd happily drink it. Similarly, if gay marriage were recognised, I'd happily welcome them as people living the law of chastity. We welcome unsealed straight couples into the law, even there's no prospect of them being sealed for eternity (a widow on a second marriage for example)

My problem starts when people use comparisons that lower a gay person's desires and acts to being a perversion or crime, which I'm glad has been banned by this thread.

Those using any argument against need to simply reverse the stakes and ask how they'd want to be spoken to if their natural, positive, fulfilling heterosexual relationships, marriages and desires were no longer inside the law of chastity.

Imagine a scenario where the church took a stance of celibacy, like Catholic priests. Set aside the doctrinal implausabilities for a moment. How would you want to be spoken to? How would you want to be treated by church members if you felt your love for your spouse was too strong to consider complying with the new law.

Given we are talking about love, emotional fulfilment and intimacy, some of the most beautiful human experiences, analogies should be framed accordingly.

Calmoriah, this isn't all directed at you, I know you've been more considerate in your tone. More at the thread in general.

[canard78]

Everybody needs to get back on the topic of the church's current position statement. The thread is not about arguing over someone's old talk. The thread will be closed if this continues.

Chaos, again, thank you for working so hard to keep this thread open.

I think it's incredibly important that this conversation does stay open.

These are the very conversations that will be happening all around the Mormon world this weekend (if people have heard about the website).

The opportunity to explore and frame an appropriate attitude to this new website and message about homosexuality is important.

I would far rather continue the conversation with a (reduced) number of people who do want to stay on topic than have it locked entirely.

I'm no moderator and relatively new to the board, but I'd suggest that those who want to discuss Apostle falibility start a new thread. Given this new message comes from the mouth of apostles and approved by the full quorum (including Elder Packer) it seems counter productive to be saying those very apostles are sometimes fallible, else why even bother accepting this new website?

I would like to continue discussing the website, OP and application of it.

[Deborah]

Talk about making a mountain out of a molehill with Elder Packer's talk. I too got the impression there was much more to the story which precipitated the young elder striking his companion. Funny how people read what they want into things.

In any cases that was a long time ago. We have become much more knowledgeable about the causes of SSA. To those who think "Well, he was general authority he should have known", do you really think that prophets are told everything. They are usually told what is needed for the time and the people. Context is everything.

[canard78]

Choosing to have a loving relationship with the person that I share my life with clearly is a choice I am comfortable with and have no regrets about. I am obviously very frustrated with your need to misrepresent my position on this matter. Nothing I can say seems to change your mind for some reason. If this post is not enough for you to give up your delusional belief that I need to justify my behavior than obviously nothing will.

One of the constant misbeliefs by some church members is the thinking that gay people desperately want to justify their choices they have made and therefor that is the reason they want marriage. It simply is wishful thinking viewing life from a Mormon perspective and not a gay perspective. If you want to understand why gay people want to marry, just consider what your life would be like of you were not allowed to marry the person you love. If you can understand that then you can understand why gays want the right to marry. Is it so hard to believe that you can be gay and be happy?

Since this subject is not what this thread is about and in keeping with Chaos counsel, this will be my last post on your absurd quest.

California boy, I admire your patience and persistence in this thread. I think the points you have your latest post make a perfect case for why you need to be in this conversation. LDS need more compassion and less prejudice.

To return to the OP, in what way do you hope to see a change in behaviour and attitude from LDS in response to the website and message?

Do you think it might result in more LDS coming out? Do you think it will mean a change in attitude towards the church from people with a SSA?

The application of the LoC hasn't changed from this website, but do you still feel it will make a positive difference in your life?

Sorry for so many questions. Feel free to pick up some/one/none as you see fit.

[canard78]

Talk about making a mountain out of a molehill with Elder Packer's talk. I too got the impression there was much more to the story which precipitated the young elder striking his companion. Funny how people read what they want into things.

In any cases that was a long time ago. We have become much more knowledgeable about the causes of SSA. To those who think "Well, he was general authority he should have known", do you really think that prophets are told everything. They are usually told what is needed for the time and the people. Context is everything.

Indeed. One of the things I have to remind myself of when I come to this board is that it's an environment of extremes. Most views and interpretations here don't represent the general consensus of the several million active members. Many members haven't heard of (let alone care about) most of what we discuss here.

I'm not saying you have extreme views, just that I empathise with the frustration. I know that I'm not immune to being the one that expresses or reacts to extreme views.

[Rivers]

Indeed. One of the things I have to remind myself of when I come to this board is that it's an environment of extremes. Most views and interpretations here don't represent the general consensus of the several million active members. Many members haven't heard of (let alone care about) most of what we discuss here.

I'm not saying you have extreme views, just that I empathise with the frustration. I know that I'm not immune to being the one that expresses or reacts to extreme views.

Indeed. One of the things I have to remind myself of when I come to this board is that it's an environment of extremes. Most views and interpretations here don't represent the general consensus of the several million active members. Many members haven't heard of (let alone care about) most of what we discuss here.

I'm not saying you have extreme views, just that I empathise with the frustration. I know that I'm not immune to being the one that expresses or reacts to extreme views.

.

The problem with the gay issue is that it is extremely polarizing.

Many feel that legitimizing homosexual relationships is completely contrary to God's will.

While others feel that the church's stance on homosexuality is completely unjust.

[california boy]

California boy, I admire your patience and persistence in this thread. I think the points you have your latest post make a perfect case for why you need to be in this conversation. LDS need more compassion and less prejudice.

To return to the OP, in what way do you hope to see a change in behavior and attitude from LDS in response to the website and message?

Thanks for your kind words. I do try to remain constrained, but sometimes it does get frustrating. Like most here, I see the new web site as just a slight shift from attitudes that the church has had in recent years. By doing a web site devoted to this issue, it makes me feel like the church more serious about this issue rather than just making pr pronouncements. And that is a good thing.

What changes in behavior I am hoping for is for more members to buy into this type of attitude towards gays. The leadership of the church has always been a bit ahead of most (not all, but most) members. I would be thrilled if the only thing this website did was to cause my family to consider inviting me to Christmas dinner. Wouldn't that be a great thing if all families of gay children paused enough to consider such an act of love. I know that the reason my family does not include me in family activities is because they feel that by doing so, they would be encouraging my immoral behavior. It is a love the sinner hate the sin kind of thinking. They say they love me, but they can't do anything to show any kind of acceptance. I get it.

Do you think it might result in more LDS coming out? Do you think it will mean a change in attitude towards the church from people with a SSA?

I think that more church members are already coming out. Gone are the days of hiding in a marriage that eventually fails. And that is a good thing. The real question is, will the church environment be enough to keep gay members from leaving the church. That is a much harder question to answer. I meet a lot of former members that have left the church because they are gay and feel like there is no place for them in the church. What is 3-5% of the church population? I think it is pretty tough for a gay person to choose to live such a lonely life. To never be able to attach themselves to anyone. To find a friend, and when feelings of love start to stir, walking away from that friendship. I had a guy fall in love with me. I wasn't in love with him. We were such close friends. We used to do things together every weekend. In the end, he had to completely quit seeing me. It was just too difficult for him. It is pretty tough. This is going to happen over and over to gay members of the church that want to continue living the law of chastity. Yeah it can be done, but most of the gay Mormons that I have met have not been able to choose that life.

The application of the LoC hasn't changed from this website, but do you still feel it will make a positive difference in your life?

I would love to still be a active part of the church. But I have no desire to live the life the church is asking me to live just to be active in the church. Nothing stops me from living the rest of the gospel except the law of chastity. And for me, that is enough. I know I will not be going to the Celestial Kingdom. I am ok with that. There is no way I want to be married to a woman for eternity. I know God loves me and I feel that how every God judges me, I will be content.

The web site will make a positive difference in my life mostly if it is instrumental in changing my families attitudes towards allowing me to be a part of the family. I hope it changes the hearts of other families. I thank the church for making an effort to heal deep wounds.

Sorry for so many questions. Feel free to pick up some/one/none as you see fit.

I don't mind answering any questions. I am sure I have said too much. But hopefully it will bring some understanding to this issue.

[juliann]

I know I will not be going to the Celestial Kingdom. I am ok with that.

I don't believe that for a minute. I think it is more likely that a family who rejects a child under such circumstances will be the party in jeopardy. The situation women face in the speculation about the CK has similar elements....the illogical and unsustainable nonsense about eternal women poaching that so many won't give up despite the words of modern leaders. Women are also expected to change into a completely different person in the afterlife and enjoy what repels them so it is not that difficult to empathize with your situation. Most women have just learned to roll their eyes and that is probably the best route to take rather than simply discarding everything because some members can't curb their tongues.

[Erin15]

The situation women face in the speculation about the CK has similar elements....the illogical and unsustainable nonsense about eternal women poaching that so many won't give up despite the words of modern leaders. Women are also expected to change into a completely different person in the afterlife and enjoy what repels them so it is not that difficult to empathize with your situation. Most women have just learned to roll their eyes and that is probably the best route to take rather than simply discarding everything because some members can't curb their tongues.

I'd really appreciate it if you wouldn't couch your own opinions and views as if they are representative of LDS women.

I have been in the church a very long time, and I have never once encountered the attitudes you describe. The women I know are positive and engaged, women who delight to serve The Lord and follow His example, who look forward with an eye of faith towards exaltation in His kingdom alongside their husbands. Women who delight in the blessings brought to each and every one of us by the restored priesthood and the restored gospel.

If your views are shared by others, they are, in my experience, a sharp enough minority that most people can go through their whole lives in the church without encountering one.

Edited December 9, 2012 by Erin15

[canard78]

Thanks for taking the time to answer, and I'm sorry to hear about your family's attitude. I'm impressed by your forgiving attitude to them, but I imagine it must still hurt. It makes sad to think that church culture or even teachings has led to this kind of reaction to the issue. I don't think that "love the sinner" is being practised very effectively a lot of the time.

I agree with Juliann, don't write off your chances just yet! There is a favourite phrase of mine from the Saviour, "my grace is sufficient."

[Calm]

I'd really appreciate it if you wouldn't couch your own opinions and views as if they are representative of LDS women.

I have been in the church a very long time, and I have never once encountered the attitudes you describe. The women I know are positive and engaged, women who delight to serve The Lord and follow His example, who look forward with an eye of faith towards exaltation in His kingdom alongside their husbands. Women who delight in the blessings brought to each and every one of us by the restored priesthood and the restored gospel.

If your views are shared by others, they are, in my experience, a sharp enough minority that most people can go through their whole lives in the church without encountering one.

You are misunderstanding what Juliann is talking about (polygyny in the CK), but I will let her clarify. Edited December 9, 2012 by calmoriah

[juliann]

I'd really appreciate it if you wouldn't couch your own opinions and views as if they are representative of LDS women.

I have been in the church a very long time, and I have never once encountered the attitudes you describe. The women I know are positive and engaged, women who delight to serve The Lord and follow His example, who look forward with an eye of faith towards exaltation in His kingdom alongside their husbands. Women who delight in the blessings brought to each and every one of us by the restored priesthood and the restored gospel.

If your views are shared by others, they are, in my experience, a sharp enough minority that most people can go through their whole lives in the church without encountering one.

I evidently omitted the word "polygamy" so I understand the confusion, but I can't figure out what you think I meant. The vast majority of women are appalled at the thought of their husbands romancing other women in the eternities so I feel no need to defend my "speaking for women" when it comes to the absurd idea that men will be picking up extra wives in an afterlife.

However, this was not intended to derail and isn't the topic at all. I only mentioned this as a demonstration that it is common in LDS thought to think that death will change a class of people's dearest and most strongly held feelings and beliefs. So the idea that our deepest feelings and desires will flip on a dime isn't just about gays and perhaps should be seen in a broader context....because the idea that we will literally become a different person violates another wide held belief, that we remain who we are. There is a whole row of dominoes that are going to go down when we start tinkering with that.

[Mark Beesley]

Twenty-three pages of discussion on a website where the Brethren are urging us to be Christlike with everyone . . . wow!

Too bad it was apparently necessary . . . the website that is . . .

[canard78]

I think we need to remember that we have no real notion of the nature of celestial relationships, romance and desires. Nor do we know the process for co-habitation or creating spirit children. As such, I too find the notion of taking a second wife in the pretty repugnant in the context of my mortal experience. I've no idea how I might feel as a resurrected being as I've no idea of the context I'll be in.