Dating Website For Mormons With Same-Sex Attraction

[Tacenda]

There are some mixed orientation marriages that work (more the exception than the rule). Definitely not an ideal circumstance, but then again neither is celibacy or losing your membership in the Church for a same-sex relationship. What other options are there? That is why we have to learn to trust that, with God, everything will be made right in the end. Easier said than done, I know.

Fortunately, these scenarios are not the case for all LDS people with SSA.

The Church is trying to make things better for the gays. Better days are ahead. I wish this could have helped the many who have already left the Church, or in the worst case scenario, ended their lives. But that is why in times like these, we have to learn to trust that, with God, everything will be made right in the end.

John Dehlin posted on FB, that this past Sunday in a combined Priesthood class, the teacher shared one of Carol Lynn Pearson's poems about Gays, and how we are to be more loving towards them. Wish I had it in front of me because I've forgotten the exact words. But it sounds like it's getting better. A year ago I recall a woman in RS who commented on Gays adopting children and how horrible it is and she continued hating on them. (I know that is rare for someone to be so open and negative in church). Anyway, I'll take John's post as a sign of good things to come. Edited January 15, 2013 by Tacenda

[rockpond]

Yes, they are.

Heterosexuals are allowed to dance with members of the opposite sex. So are people with SSA.

Heterosexuals are (I believe) discouraged/prohibited from dancing with members of the same sex. So are people with SSA.

The same standards are applied to all members.

Church members, all of them, are encouraged to marry if that is feasible.

Marriage does not happen for everyone, of course. When it does not happen, then those members, all of them, are required to remain celibate.

The same standards are applied to all members.

Church members, all of them, get to engage in sexual relations within bounds prescribed by God.

Church members, all of them, are prohibited from engaging in sexual relations outside of those bounds.

The same standards are applied to all members.

To suggest otherwise is to create a special dispensation for people with SSA. That's not right. There are plenty of heterosexual church members who are asked to live a life of celibacy. And yet there is no concerted effort to push the LDS Church to let them exceed the bounds set by God.

People with opposite-sex attraction face the same constraints on their sexual behavior as do people with same-sex attraction.

All Church members may dance, date, hold hands, kiss and have a hope of marriage.

Those behaviors, however, are not unfettered. To the extent same-sex dancing, dating, etc. is prohibited, it is prohibited for all church members.

For members with opposite-sex attraction, but must also not participate in any of those activities.

Your reasoning does not make sense to me. By your reasoning, a married man should expect the Church to have an adulterous affair simply because he is attracted to that person. An unmarried man should be able to have sex outside of marriage simply because he wants to.

What is it, exactly, that privileges homosexual behavior above these?

Again, this is utter and complete crap. If a homosexual church member resents being held to the same standard that everyone else is held to, then that person is in error.

Thanks,

-Smac

Smac,

You seemed to have missed my point. I'll try to clarify: It has to do with the behaviors being allowed with the gender each individual is inherently oriented to be with. Obviously, a heterosexual young man would be discouraged from slow dancing at a church dance with another young man. But the heterosexual young man doesn't want to slow dance with another young man. He wants to dance with a young woman. He wants to date a young woman. Marry a young woman. He wants sex with a young woman.

A homosexual young man does not get to dance, date, or marry the person that he is inherently attracted to. That is the different standard that I am referring to.

I'm not suggesting that desire overrides chastity. A married man doesn't get to have an affair simply because he desires it.

So while it is true that "All Church members may dance, date, hold hands, kiss and have a hope of marriage." Only heterosexual members get to do it in a way that is meaningful and integral. Only heterosexual members get to do it with the gender that their mind & heart leads them to.

You are welcome to continue to play the black & white game of suggesting that homosexual members face the same standards as those of us lucky enough to be heterosexual members but I contend it is an approach that does not really show much empathy.

You wrote: "There are plenty of heterosexual church members who are asked to live a life of celibacy."

Who are these members asked to be celibate in the same way that we ask homosexual members to be celibate (meaning no dancing, no dating, no kissing)? Who else do we ask to live their life that way (outside of a temporary mission)? While there are members who may not be blessed with the opportunity, I don't think there is any other class of people who we ask to make that sacrifice.

[smac97]

I agree rockpond. To me this looks like a site that can provide dialog and fellowship for people who identify as LDS, and who want to remain associated with the church.

"Remain associated with it," while at the same time committing profoundly serious sins as taught within it? I'll have to disagree that this is a winning formula.

The Gospel of Christ is one in inclusion and not exclusion.

Indeed. As Christ said, "I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance" (Matthew 9:13).

All of us are called to repent and to come unto Christ. All of us sinners with our various sins, including sexual sins. Christ wants all of us to forsake those sins. He wants to save us from our sins. The Gospel of Christ calls upon us to repent, forsake sins, and be included in the flock.

I suspect, however, that the idea of "inclusivity" you reference above entails characterizing the Gospel of Christ as something in which sin disregarded as such, in which "whatsoever a man did was no crime" (Alma 30:17), in which we can tell each other "do this, or do that, and it mattereth not, for the Lord will uphold such at the last day" (Mormon 8:31), in which we will say "eat, drink, and be merry; nevertheless, fear God—he will justify in committing a little sin; yea, lie a little, take the advantage of one because of his words, dig a pit for thy neighbor; there is no 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" (2 Nephi 28:.

With respect, I disagree with any concept of "inclusivity" that disregards distinctions between righteousness and sin, between obedience and rebellion.

We do need to find some common ground.

Agreed. Obedience to the commandments of God is the common ground we need, rather than uncommon ground where homosexual church members get special permission to disregard the some of the most important commandments in the Gospel while the rest of us are tasked with obeying them.

Thanks,

-Smac

[rockpond]

John Dehlin posted on FB, that this past Sunday in a combined Priesthood class, the teacher shared one of Carol Lynn Pearson's poems about Gays, and how we are to be more loving towards them. Wish I had it in front of me because I've forgotten the exact words. But it sounds like it's getting better. A year ago I recall a woman in RS who commented on Gays adopting children and how horrible it is and she continued hating on them. (I know that is rare for someone to be so open and negative in church). Anyway, I'll take John's post as a sign of good things to come.

I believe you might be referring to one of her song's in the primary songbook:

http://www.lds.org/music/library/childrens-songbook/ill-walk-with-you?lang=eng

This song doesn't specifically call out gay people but Sister Pearson has said that they are one of the types of people she had in mind when writing the lyrics.

[Sky]

Yes, they are.

Heterosexuals are allowed to dance with members of the opposite sex. So are people with SSA.

Heterosexuals are (I believe) discouraged/prohibited from dancing with members of the same sex. So are people with SSA.

The same standards are applied to all members.

Church members, all of them, are encouraged to marry if that is feasible.

Marriage does not happen for everyone, of course. When it does not happen, then those members, all of them, are required to remain celibate.

The same standards are applied to all members.

Church members, all of them, get to engage in sexual relations within bounds prescribed by God.

Church members, all of them, are prohibited from engaging in sexual relations outside of those bounds.

The same standards are applied to all members.

To suggest otherwise is to create a special dispensation for people with SSA. That's not right. There are plenty of heterosexual church members who are asked to live a life of celibacy. And yet there is no concerted effort to push the LDS Church to let them exceed the bounds set by God.

People with opposite-sex attraction face the same constraints on their sexual behavior as do people with same-sex attraction.

All Church members may dance, date, hold hands, kiss and have a hope of marriage.

Those behaviors, however, are not unfettered. To the extent same-sex dancing, dating, etc. is prohibited, it is prohibited for all church members.

For members with opposite-sex attraction, but must also not participate in any of those activities.

Your reasoning does not make sense to me. By your reasoning, a married man should expect the Church to have an adulterous affair simply because he is attracted to that person. An unmarried man should be able to have sex outside of marriage simply because he wants to.

What is it, exactly, that privileges homosexual behavior above these?

Again, this is utter and complete crap. If a homosexual church member resents being held to the same standard that everyone else is held to, then that person is in error.

Thanks,

-Smac

Sorry, but the Church doesn't ask exactly the same thing for gay people as it does for straight people. Elder Marlin Jensen even admitted it six years ago in the PBS special The Mormons. His words are as true today as they were then (bold italics for emphasis):

The thing that we have to ultimately say ... is, yes, there's nature; yes, there's nurture; but there's also agency. We all have the capacity and power to choose. If you're going to live your life within the framework of the Gospel, within the framework of our doctrine, then you've got to choose to marry someone of the opposite sex, and if you can't do that honestly, then your choice has to be to live a celibate life. That is a very difficult choice for the parents, for the young man, the young woman, for whoever's making that choice, and my heart goes out to them. I think we're asking a tremendous amount of them.

And yes, some people argue sometimes, well, for the gay person or the lesbian person, we're not asking more of them than we're asking of the single woman who never marries. But I long ago found in talking to them that we do ask for something different: In the case of the gay person, they really have no hope. A single woman, a single man who is heterosexual in their thinking always has the hope, always has the expectation that tomorrow they're going to meet someone and fall in love and that it can be sanctioned by the church. But a gay person who truly is committed to that way of life in his heart and mind doesn't have that hope. And to live life without hope on such a core issue, I think, is a very difficult thing.

We, again, as a church need to be, I think, even more charitable than we've been, more outreaching in a sense. A religion produces a culture, and culture has its stereotypes, has its mores. It's very difficult, for instance, in our culture not to be a returning missionary. What about the young man who chooses not to go, or the parents who marry and for whatever reasons don't have children, or the young woman who grows old without marrying, or the divorced person? I think we can be quite hard -- in a sense unwittingly, but nevertheless hard -- on those people in our culture, because we have cultural expectations, cultural ideals, and if you measure up to them, it's a wonderful life. If you don't, it could be very difficult. …

[rockpond]

Obedience to the commandments of God is the common ground we need, rather than uncommon ground where homosexual church members get special permission to disregard the some of the most important commandments in the Gospel while the rest of us are tasked with obeying them.

Yes, it's tough for heterosexuals to confine their dating to members of the opposite sex. I'm sure a lot of heterosexual men out there were just dying to propose to other men but they fought that urge out of deference to the commandments.

[smac97]

And you have verifiable data on the success of those marriages? Because I have read accounts of many mixed orientation marriages that fail and leave damaged lives in their wake.

If memory serves, the LDS Church does not encourage the use of marriage to "cure" SSA. Some church members with SSA have tried it anyway and it appears to work for some, though.

And, of course, there are the "surprising number of active, faithful members of the church who have SSA" either left the church and/or chosen to end their lives under the crushing weight of our loving and compassionate outreach.

Ah, I was wondering when the unfortunately-frequent "Hey, Mormons! Either change your doctrines or I'll kill myself and blame you for it!" trope would be trotted out.

When it comes to people with SSA - and specifically young Latter-day Saints with SSA, I think it is tragic that some of these brothers and sisters are treated poorly by some because of that orientation. And I am appalled and saddened that anyone would kill themselves for any reason, including despairing Latter-day Saints. However, I firmly believe that homosexual conduct is not compatible with the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ. I also believe that there is a concerted effort to legitimize homosexual conduct and undermine any organization that feels differently. I also believe that this concerted effort bears substantial responsibility for inculcating vulnerable Latter-day Saints (those with same-sex attraction) with the notion that their orientation is either compatible with or superior in importance to the Restored Gospel.

At the end of the day, the Restored Gospel prohibits homosexual behavior (along with many other sexual behaviors). Consequently, people who advocate the notion that same-sex behavior is compatible with the Restored Gospel exhibit a profound lack of judgment. In attempting to alleviate despair among young Latter-day Saints with SSA, I fear that these folks may be tacitly recommending a course of action that will only deepen that despair and lead young LDS away from the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

To the OP: I doubt they meant "allies against the church." Maybe it is actually "allies against bigots."

I suspect that critics of the Church view this as a distinction without a difference. Opposition to homosexual behavior is, in the minds of some, per se bigotry.

Thanks,

-Smac

[go_utes01]

Nobody said it isn't difficult or that we don't sympathize with our brothers and sisters in pain. But, with God all things are possible.

28 Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.

29 Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls.

30 For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.

7 And it came to pass that I, Nephi, said unto my father: I awill go and do the things which the Lord hath commanded, for I know that the Lord giveth no bcommandments unto the children of men, save he shall cprepare a way for them that they may accomplish the thing which he commandeth them.

He never said it would be easy, only that it would be worth it.

Edited January 15, 2013 by go_utes01

[rockpond]

If memory serves, the LDS Church does not encourage the use of marriage to "cure" SSA. Some church members with SSA have tried it anyway and it appears to work for some, though.

Yes, a very wise and possibly inspired policy change the church made around 1990.

Ah, I was wondering when the unfortunately-frequent "Hey, Mormons! Either change your doctrines or I'll kill myself and blame you for it!" trope would be trotted out.

One of your more callous responses. It ceases to be a trope when you are on the other end of the phone in the middle of the night trying to talk one of your former YM out of swallowing a bottle of pills.

When it comes to people with SSA - and specifically young Latter-day Saints with SSA, I think it is tragic that some of these brothers and sisters are treated poorly by some because of that orientation. And I am appalled and saddened that anyone would kill themselves for any reason, including despairing Latter-day Saints. However, I firmly believe that homosexual conduct is not compatible with the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ. I also believe that there is a concerted effort to legitimize homosexual conduct and undermine any organization that feels differently. I also believe that this concerted effort bears substantial responsibility for inculcating vulnerable Latter-day Saints (those with same-sex attraction) with the notion that their orientation is either compatible with or superior in importance to the Restored Gospel.

At the end of the day, the Restored Gospel prohibits homosexual behavior (along with many other sexual behaviors). Consequently, people who advocate the notion that same-sex behavior is compatible with the Restored Gospel exhibit a profound lack of judgment. In attempting to alleviate despair among young Latter-day Saints with SSA, I fear that these folks may be tacitly recommending a course of action that will only deepen that despair and lead young LDS away from the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ.

I'll keep discussing this topic if you want but I think that I've made my point and these last two paragraphs are (for me and my heart) the best of your thoughts on the matter. I can appreciate your beliefs regarding homosexual conduct and the restored gospel even while I am one of those who does believe that there is room within the restored gospel to allow for homosexual conduct within the bounds of the law of chastity.

I realize you believe my position to be "crap" (many fellow Mormons agree with you) so you don't need to say it again.

[Tacenda]

I believe you might be referring to one of her song's in the primary songbook:

http://www.lds.org/music/library/childrens-songbook/ill-walk-with-you?lang=eng

This song doesn't specifically call out gay people but Sister Pearson has said that they are one of the types of people she had in mind when writing the lyrics.

That's the one!

[Damien the Leper]

ldsplanet or ldssingles is better anyways....

Try finding your future husband on those sites bud!?!

[smac97]

Smac,

You seemed to have missed my point.

No, I got your point. I just don't agree with it.

I'll try to clarify: It has to do with the behaviors being allowed with the gender each individual is inherently oriented to be with.

No. It has to do with one set of rules for heterosexuals, and a separate, easier set of rules of homosexuals.

You see, heterosexuals have to confine their behavior to parameters set by God. No adultery, no fornication, no homosexual behavior, and so on.

But you are suggesting that homosexuals be given some sort of special dispensation to disregard the commandments of God. I disagree with that.

Obviously, a heterosexual young man would be discouraged from slow dancing at a church dance with another young man.

I'm glad we agree on that. Same-sex dancing is inappropriate for all Church members. The same standard applies to all of us.

But the heterosexual young man doesn't want to slow dance with another young man.

Irrelevant. The standard of behavior is the same for all of us, regardless of "orientation."

He wants to dance with a young woman. He wants to date a young woman. Marry a young woman. He wants sex with a young woman.

And if he is married to that young woman, that's all fine and dandy. But if he's not married to that young woman, then sex is a no-go.

To continue your train of thought: A homosexual man would not want to have sex with that young woman, right? But that does not matter, because he is constrained from that behavior whether he wants to do it or not.

A heterosexual man is prohibited from dancing with another man, and so is a homosexual man.

A homosexual man is prohibited from having sex with a young woman not his wife, and so is a heterosexual man.

Do you see this? The same standard being applied across the board?

A homosexual young man does not get to dance, date, or marry the person that he is inherently attracted to. That is the different standard that I am referring to.

There is no different standard. Same-sex behavior is prohibited amongst all church members.

I'm not suggesting that desire overrides chastity. A married man doesn't get to have an affair simply because he desires it.

Great! And a homosexual man doesn't get to have sex with another man simply because he "desires it."

Desire, you see, is not determinative of the standard. God has prohibited adultery amongst His children. God has also prohibited same-sex behavior amongst His children. It is true that some of His children want to (and do) engage in adultery. This is wrong. It is also true that some of His children want to (and do) engage in same-sex behavior. This is wrong.

The same standard applies to all church members.

So while it is true that "All Church members may dance, date, hold hands, kiss and have a hope of marriage." Only heterosexual members get to do it in a way that is meaningful and integral. Only heterosexual members get to do it with the gender that their mind & heart leads them to.

Yes. Heterosexual behavior is privileged, and homosexual behavior is prohibited. This is not, I think, a point in dispute. What you do not seem to get, though, is that these standards are universal.

You are welcome to continue to play the black & white game of suggesting that homosexual members face the same standards as those of us lucky enough to be heterosexual members

It's not a "game." It's quite a serious topic. You are quite wrong in your suggestions about this topic, and so I express my disagreement with you on it.

but I contend it is an approach that does not really show much empathy.

Right. Failure to endorse/embrace homosexual behavior = lack of empathy.

Thanks for playing.

You wrote: "There are plenty of heterosexual church members who are asked to live a life of celibacy."

Who are these members asked to be celibate in the same way that we ask homosexual members to be celibate (meaning no dancing, no dating, no kissing)?

That's not what celibacy means.

Also, I am married. This means I am constrained from dancing/dating/kissing women other than my wife. By your reasoning, this is a sad state of affairs. What if I want to commit adultery? That, in your view, makes adultery okay, right?

On the other hand, adultery might be inappropriate conduct, even if I want to do it. It's wrong because God has said it is wrong. It is prohibited because God has prohibited it.

The same goes for homosexual behavior. It is inappropriate conduct, even if a person wants to do it. It's wrong because God has said it is wrong. It is prohibited because God has prohibited it.

Please advise which parts of the foregoing sentences you find incorrect from within the LDS paradigm. I'm all ears.

Who else do we ask to live their life that way (outside of a temporary mission)?

Who else do we ask to abstain from homosexual behavior? ALL OF US. There is no special exemption for those of us who really, really want to do this sort of thing. It's wrong. It's prohibited. For all of us.

Also, who is asked to abstain from adultery and fornication? ALL OF US. There is no special exemption for those of us who really, really want to do this sort of thing. It's wrong. It's prohibited. For all of us.

While there are members who may not be blessed with the opportunity, I don't think there is any other class of people who we ask to make that sacrifice.

I disagree. There are many people in the Church who are called upon to make similarly challenging sacrifices. There is a marvelous woman in my ward, a former RS president, who has never been married. She has been asked to be celibate her entire life.

There are people in the Church who struggle with infidelity.

There are people in the Church who struggle with fornication.

There are people in the Church who struggle with pornography and its attendant problems.

And yet the LDS Church imposes the same standards of behavior on these people as it does on people who do not struggle with these temptations.

How does that work? Simple: We are all governed by the same standards of behavior. That some of us struggle in different ways against different parts of those standards is a part of living in this Telestial World.

Your implicit suggestion, though, is that people struggling with homosexual temptations should be given some sort of special exemption from the same standards of sexual morality that apply to the rest of us. I disagree with this suggestion. I do not think this is part of the Plan.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited January 15, 2013 by smac97

[smac97]

Sorry, but the Church doesn't ask exactly the same thing for gay people as it does for straight people.

Sorry, but the Church asks exactly the same thing: No adultery. No fornication. No homosexual behavior.

Heterosexual church members don't get a free pass on adultery just 'cuz they want to engage in that behavior. Likewise, homosexual church members don't get a free pass on the prohibited behavior they're tempted with.

Elder Marlin Jensen even admitted it six years ago in the PBS special The Mormons. His words are as true today as they were then (bold italics for emphasis):

The thing that we have to ultimately say ... is, yes, there's nature; yes, there's nurture; but there's also agency. We all have the capacity and power to choose. If you're going to live your life within the framework of the Gospel, within the framework of our doctrine, then you've got to choose to marry someone of the opposite sex, and if you can't do that honestly, then your choice has to be to live a celibate life. That is a very difficult choice for the parents, for the young man, the young woman, for whoever's making that choice, and my heart goes out to them. I think we're asking a tremendous amount of them.

And yes, some people argue sometimes, well, for the gay person or the lesbian person, we're not asking more of them than we're asking of the single woman who never marries. But I long ago found in talking to them that we do ask for something different: In the case of the gay person, they really have no hope. A single woman, a single man who is heterosexual in their thinking always has the hope, always has the expectation that tomorrow they're going to meet someone and fall in love and that it can be sanctioned by the church. But a gay person who truly is committed to that way of life in his heart and mind doesn't have that hope. And to live life without hope on such a core issue, I think, is a very difficult thing.

We, again, as a church need to be, I think, even more charitable than we've been, more outreaching in a sense. A religion produces a culture, and culture has its stereotypes, has its mores. It's very difficult, for instance, in our culture not to be a returning missionary. What about the young man who chooses not to go, or the parents who marry and for whatever reasons don't have children, or the young woman who grows old without marrying, or the divorced person? I think we can be quite hard -- in a sense unwittingly, but nevertheless hard -- on those people in our culture, because we have cultural expectations, cultural ideals, and if you measure up to them, it's a wonderful life. If you don't, it could be very difficult. …

Admirable sentiments. I agree with them. But he's not saying anything to suggest that there is one set of commandments for heterosexual members and another for homosexual members.

There are Church members who struggle with the Word of Wisdom. We can, and should, be compassionate and loving toward such people. But we do not abandon the Word of Wisdom in the process.

There are Church members who struggle with adultery. I genuinely believe that some people are more predisposed to be sexually promiscuous than others. We can, and should, be compassionate and loving toward such people. But we do not abandon the Law of Chastity in the process.

There are Church members who struggle with other types of sexual sin. Fornication. Pornography. Pedophilia. Incest. We can, and should, be compassionate and loving toward such people. But we do not abandon the Law of Chastity in the process.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

Yes, it's tough for heterosexuals to confine their dating to members of the opposite sex. I'm sure a lot of heterosexual men out there were just dying to propose to other men but they fought that urge out of deference to the commandments.

You mock a legitimate point. There are plenty of heterosexual church members who struggle with abstaining from prohibited sexual behaviors (such as adultery and fornication).

And yet the Church still holds them to this standard.

A homosexual man may not be tempted to have extramarital sex with a woman, but that's not the point. He's still prohibited from doing it.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

One of your more callous responses.

Not callous. Mine was an appropriate response to the cynical exploitation of suicides as a guilt-trip tactic against those who believe in and defend the precepts of the Restored Gospel.

I find such exploitation repellant, and I am not shy about expressing my disgust with such exploitation.

It ceases to be a trope when you are on the other end of the phone in the middle of the night trying to talk one of your former YM out of swallowing a bottle of pills.

It continues to be a trope when people who want to pressure the LDS Church and its members trot it out as an exploitive guilt-trip.

Look, I have no doubt that same-sex attraction can be a tremendous struggle. But rhetorical references to gay suicides in discussions such as this, with the attendant implication that such suicides are to be blamed on people who do not embrace/endorse same-sex behavior, are pretty much the equivalent of calling the other guy a Nazi. It just ain't cool.

I'll keep discussing this topic if you want but I think that I've made my point and these last two paragraphs are (for me and my heart) the best of your thoughts on the matter.

As you like. Perhaps the next time you and your heart could avoid suggesting that gay suicides are to be blamed on people who disagree with you. "Callous" I can handle, no problemo. But the "We've gotta embrace same-sex behavior 'cuz otherwise homosexuals will kill themselves and it'll be our fault" meme just doesn't work for me. AKAIK, there is no correlation between gay suicides and social opprobrium. In fact, it appears that the correlation is not between "gay suicide" and "social opprobrium," but between "gay" and "suicide."

According to a study in the Netherlands where homosexuality has been accepted and mainstreamed for years, homosexual behavior significantly increases the likelihood of psychiatric, mental and emotional disorders, negating the mindset that society's lack of tolerance of homosexual behavior and lifestyle produces these psychoses. Youth are four times more likely to suffer major depression, almost three times as likely to suffer generalized anxiety disorder, nearly four times as likely to experience conduct disorder, four times as likely to commit suicide, five times as likely to have nicotine dependence, six times as likely to suffer multiple disorders, and more than six times as likely to have attempted suicide. (Study of 5,998 Dutch adults) Theo G.M. Sandforte et al., "Same-Sex Sexual Behavior and Psychiatric Disorders: Findings from the Netherlands Mental Health Survey and Incidence," Archives of General Psychiatry 58, 10 (2001): 85-91.

Researchers found "an elevated suicide risk for homosexuals" even in tolerant Denmark. Ping Qin, Esben Agerbo, and Preben Bo Mortensen, "Suicide Risk in Relation to Socioeconomic, Demographic, Psychiatric, and Familial Factors: A National Register-Based Study of All Suicides in Denmark, 1981-1997." American Journal of Psychiatry 160 (2003): 765-772.

Moreover, people who like to go around blithely accusing active Latter-day Saints of fomenting gay suicide generally don't pay attention to (or are altogether ignorant of) stuff like this:

Active Latter-day Saints Seven Times Less Likely to Commit Suicide

SOURCE: American Journal of Epidemiology 2002;155:413-419. Write-up in: "High Religious Commitment Linked to Less Suicide", by Charnicia E. Huggins (Reuters Health), Daily News (6 March 2002), URL: http://dailynews.yah...om/htx/nm/20020 ... ion_1.html

NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - Young Mormon men living in Utah who closely adhere to the dictates of their faith are less likely to commit suicide than their peers who are less active in the church, study findings show.

The Mormon Church is known formally as the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS).

For more than 10 years, 15- to 34-year-old males in Utah have had suicide rates markedly higher than those seen nationally. In fact, in the early to mid-1990s, suicide was the number one cause of death among 25- to 44-year-old men in the state and the second-leading cause of death among men aged 15 to 24.

"These results provide evidence that a low level of religious commitment is a potential risk factor for suicide," Dr. Sterling C. Hilton of Brigham Young University in Provo, Utah, and his colleagues write in the March 1st issue of the American Journal of Epidemiology.

Hmm. The Latter-day Saints who are at increased risk for suicide, then, are those who do not live according to the teachings of the LDS Church.

Put another way, the teachings of the LDS Church decrease the risk of suicide. This kinds contradicts the whole "We gotta let homosexuals ditch the Law of Chastity, else they'll kill themselves" narrative.

Here's a sincere question for you: Based on the data set forth above (and I could provide much more if need be): If folks are so concerned about homosexuals committing suicide, why aren't they encouraging them to to maintain high levels of religious observance (which includes, you know, abstinence from homosexual behavior)? And why are they instead trying to persuade/cajole the LDS Church into altering its teachings about homosexuality when living in accordance with those teachings appears to lower the risk of suicide?

I can appreciate your beliefs regarding homosexual conduct and the restored gospel even while I am one of those who does believe that there is room within the restored gospel to allow for homosexual conduct within the bounds of the law of chastity.

While I likewise appreciate your beliefs, I believe that they are profoundly, fundamentally, irretrievably wrong. I do not say this lightly. I generally recognize that the Restored Gospel can accommodate a surprisingly broad spectrum of views on various topics. That is not to say that these views are all correct. Far from it. Rather, God has set up a system that allows us to harbor incomplete and/or partially incorrect perceptions of facets of the Restored Gospel, while still being able to function within that Gospel. We see through a glass, darkly, and all that. God will sort things out in the end.

But the Restored Gospel also offers clarity in areas of moral ambiguity, particularly where the World is saying one thing and the Scriptures and Prophets another. Some of us have chosen to listen to and accept the precepts of the World on this point, precepts which patently contradict the Restored Gospel.

I can accept divergent views on many things, but not all things. The Scriptures warn against calling evil good, and good evil. Against putting darkness for light, and light for darkness. Against putting bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter.

We are living in a point in time in which, in the World, homosexual behavior is characterized as "good" and "light" and "sweet," and opposition to it based on adherence to scriptural and personal revelation as "evil" and "dark" and "bitter." I cannot agree with these characterizations.

Homosexual conduct is fundamentally at odds with the precepts of the Restored Gospel. It is expressly prohibited by both ancient and modern prophets, the conduits of the Restored Gospel. It contravenes the fundamental tenets of the Plan of Salvation, most particularly concerning the eschatological destination of God's children. It doesn't make sense biologically. Or physiologically. All of these things are, as far as I can tell, empirically true. Subjectively, I also reject popular contemporary calls for endorsing/embracing homosexual behavior because such efforts are repugnant on their face (see comments above about exploiting suicides as a guilt-tripping tactic), and because such efforts are, in my opinion, incompatible with guidance from both the Light of Christ and the Holy Spirit.

I realize you believe my position to be "crap" (many fellow Mormons agree with you) so you don't need to say it again.

The "crap" to which I refer is the bad faith or self-centered vapidity of people who perceive a "loving and compassionate response" from Latter-day Saints to be something other than a "loving and compassionate response."

I likewise declare as "crap" the exploitation of suicides amongst homosexuals as a guilt-tripping rhetorical tool to be deployed willy-nilly against people who have rational, reasoned, and spiritual opposition to homosexual behavior (but who harbor no ill will whatsoever against those who struggle with such temptations). It is a well-poisoning gimmick that is repulsive in every way. "Disagree with us and you'll be to blame for gay suicides!"

I am not "callous" for resenting and objecting to being accused of fomenting gay suicide. I find such cheap rhetorical references profane and exploit these tragedies. So if you don't want to be called on such tactics, then don't use 'em.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited January 15, 2013 by smac97

[jwhitlock]

The Gospel of Christ is one in inclusion and not exclusion. We do need to find some common ground.

The Gospel of Christ is one of invitation to come to Him - not one of Him embracing whatever people want.

[jwhitlock]

And you have verifiable data on the success of those marriages? Because I have read accounts of many mixed orientation marriages that fail and leave damaged lives in their wake.

And, of course, there are the "surprising number of active, faithful members of the church who have SSA" either left the church and/or chosen to end their lives under the crushing weight of our loving and compassionate outreach.

So what? Most people in society don't embrace the restored gospel; that doesn't make it false or unworkable.

There is plenty of data on successful marriages; those on both sides face many of the same challenges. Many straight marriages fail and leave damaged lives in their wake - because one or both partners were unwilling to do what was necessary to make it work.

I realize that those promoting giving in to SSA are bothered by those who have SSA and are successful in opposite-sex marriages. Such situations fly in the face of the agenda such promoters have, which is to say that SSA should be given free reign in order to "fulfill" the wants and needs of those with SSA. And the church better get on board with that attitude, or else you portray us as bigots, responsible for killing those with SSA, etc.

And that, as Smac has noted, is crap.

[rockpond]

Desire, you see, is not determinative of the standard.

I'm not suggesting that "desire" is the standard. I agree with you that there is much that we desire that we cannot act on. The important difference is the sexual orientation we each have which in many cases is unchangeable (that last word being something that the Brethren have said, not my own words).

You said: "Heterosexual behavior is privileged, and homosexual behavior is prohibited. This is not, I think, a point in dispute. What you do not seem to get, though, is that these standards are universal."

That's what I'm trying to get at. This universally applied standard privileges heterosexuals.

And your question: "Also, I am married. This means I am constrained from dancing/dating/kissing women other than my wife. By your reasoning, this is a sad state of affairs. What if I want to commit adultery? That, in your view, makes adultery okay, right?"

I am certainly not suggesting that. I believe in the law of chastity and our marital vows.

If the RS president who you cite is heterosexual than she hasn't been asked to be celibate in the same way as homosexuals are asked to be celibate (for those homosexuals who are not able to make a marriage to the opposite-sex work, recognizing that some are). A single heterosexual woman, even an elderly one, can date/hold hands/kiss a person of the gender that she drawn to. A single homosexual woman cannot have that same privilege. Yes, as you have pointed out, a homosexual woman *could* date a man but her orientation means that she would not receive the same fulfillment that you and I, as heterosexual men got when we started dating young women.

[rockpond]

Smac and jwhitlock

I apologize, I did not mean to offend with the comment on suicide. And I'm not suggesting that we change the restored gospel because gay people are making the horrific and wrong choice to end their lives. And I certainly have no intent of laying those suicides at the feet of you or anyone else on this board.

I started my comments on this thread with the hypothesis that we are in a quandary... We are called upon to reach out with love and compassion to our gay brothers & sisters. And yet, what we have to offer them within the church doesn't always look much like love and compassion.

We, in the church, do an amazing job of teaching the plan of salvation to our kids. We are great at it. We diligently and beautifully live it with our children in our homes. We elevate it on the altars of the temple. We role model it in almost all that we do. And that's a good thing. But when the small percentage of our youth who are gay get hit with the realization that they can't have what we taught them to hold dear - it is devastating. How do we still make sure they feel the love of the gospel and the compassion of the church?

Here, with the OP of this thread, we have Brother Markle who wants what we, as a church, raised him to want. He wants a loving relationship. A helpmeet. However misguided it may be, he is creating a website for others to also seek that loving relationship within their LDS community. And I don't see much love or compassion for him here on this board. Not a lot of empathy being sent his way. I'm not trying to call anyone to repentance but rather have a discussion on how well we're meeting that charge from our Prophet. And how we could do better.

Maybe I'm misguided. Maybe I'm coming across as arrogant. If so, I apologize.

As Smac has pointed out, the standard may be universal but the sacrifice being asked of homosexuals in this regard far exceeds that being asked of heterosexuals. How do we embrace that sacrifice and embrace those called upon to make it?

[smac97]

I'm not suggesting that "desire" is the standard.

Well, it appears that is exactly what you are suggesting. Your entire premise is that homosexuals should be exempted from the same standards of sexual behavior that apply to everyone else because they want to engage in that behavior.

This thread is full of posts explaining how homosexual members are treated differently because they cannot fulfill their desires.

But if we take desires out of the equation, and simply look at the standard of behavior imposed on church members, we see that the same standard is applied across the board. Once we see that, all the various arguments presented in this thread, based as they are on homosexuals being downtrodden because of their unfulfilled desires, fall apart.

I agree with you that there is much that we desire that we cannot act on.

And yet here you are, proposing that homosexual members be given some sort of special dispensation. That they be allowed to engage in conduct prohibited to the rest of us, solely because they want to engage in that behavior.

But such reasoning falls apart quickly. By your reckoning, adultery is A-OK as long as the adulterer wants to engage in that conduct, which is prohibited to others.

And with that, let's move on to the "I'm not arguing for special rules exempting homosexuals from the commandments of God, except that I am" argument:

The important difference is the sexual orientation we each have which in many cases is unchangeable (that last word being something that the Brethren have said, not my own words).

I disagree that sexual orientation is fixed and immutable for all people. For some, but not for all.

In any event, so what? How does having those desires justify exempting homosexuals from adherence to the same standards of sexual behavior expected from the rest of us?

You said: "Heterosexual behavior is privileged, and homosexual behavior is prohibited. This is not, I think, a point in dispute. What you do not seem to get, though, is that these standards are universal."

That's what I'm trying to get at. This universally applied standard privileges heterosexuals.

Yes. That is the order of things. Heterosexual behavior is, within boundaries set by God, condoned, celebrated, endorsed, mandated.

Sexual fidelity within marriage is privileged, whereas sexual infidelity or promiscuity is not.

Consensual sexual behavior is privileged, whereas nonconsensual sexual behavior is not.

I'm not seeing your point here. God had commanded us to engage in certain behaviors (consensual heterosexual behavior within marriage) and prohibited us from engaging in other behaviors (adultery, fornication, homosexual behavior, rape, incest, etc.).

And you appear to be suggesting that this is ... bad? Let's drop the coy routine and get down to brass tacks. What are you saying here?

And your question: "Also, I am married. This means I am constrained from dancing/dating/kissing women other than my wife. By your reasoning, this is a sad state of affairs. What if I want to commit adultery? That, in your view, makes adultery okay, right?"

I am certainly not suggesting that.

Okay. So adultery is wrong. Do you agree that God has prohibited this behavior, hence its wrongness?

What about homosexual behavior? You apparently dispute that God has prohibited this behavior, hence the coyness.

I believe in the law of chastity

And yet here you are on this thread, advocating for Mr. Markle's website, which is expressly designed to facilitate the violation of the Law of Chastity, and describing it as "something that is needed."

I struggle to understand how you reconcile your belief in the Law of Chastity with your support of a website designed to engage the violation of that Law. Can you explain this? (This is not a rhetorical question.)

and our marital vows.

Do you also believe in the scriptural and prophetic prohibitions against same-sex behavior? It appears not.

So each of us is to become a law unto ourselves. We are free to obey laws we like and disregard those we do not.

This line of reasoning can be reconciled with the Law of Chastity ... how, exactly?

If the RS president who you cite is heterosexual than she hasn't been asked to be celibate in the same way as homosexuals are asked to be celibate (for those homosexuals who are not able to make a marriage to the opposite-sex work, recognizing that some are).

Utter and complete crap. She has been asked to abstain from heterosexal activity outside of marriage. She has also been asked to abstain from homosexual activity outside of marriage. The same standards of celibacy are imposed on her as apply to anyone else in the Church.

Unless, of course, you start differentiating people based on their desire, which you started this post by saying that you aren't doing that.

So what are you doing, exactly?

A single heterosexual woman, even an elderly one, can date/hold hands/kiss a person of the gender that she drawn to.

A single heterosexual woman can date, hold hands, kiss a person of the opposite gender, but not of the same gender. Desire, as you said, does not determine the standard of behavior. But here you are suggesting it does.

Are you talking out of both sides of your mouth? Or do you simply not see the contradiction?

A single homosexual woman cannot have that same privilege.

A single homosexual woman has the same privileges of behavior, and the same prohibitions, that apply to all of us.

Unless, of course, you are suggesting that behavioral standards should be based on desire. But you said previously that you are not doing that.

So what are you doing?

Yes, as you have pointed out, a homosexual woman *could* date a man but her orientation means that she would not receive the same fulfillment that you and I, as heterosexual men got when we started dating young women.

But you've said that her desires do not dictate the standard of behavior. So what difference does it make whether her desires are fulfilled? By this reasoning, an adulterer should be free to commit adultery because that prohibition prevents him from, as you put it, "receiv(ing) the same fulfillment that you and I." An unmarried man should be free to fornicate because otherwise he does not "receive the same fulfillment that you and I."

I believe you are speaking in good faith, and that you are not intentionally contradicting yourself. Instead, may I respectfully suggest that you are unintentionally contradicting yourself.

You said that desires do not define the standard of behavior. If so, then the desires of a homosexual person are irrelevant to the constraints put upon his sexual behavior, and he is held to the same standard as the rest of us.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited January 15, 2013 by smac97

[Tacenda]

I personally know someone that was in the closet about being Gay, who took their life while in High School back in the early 80's. I think he'd still be alive now if he were in High School. Atleast I hope he would!

Edited January 15, 2013 by Tacenda

[rockpond]

Smac,

I'm suggesting that there is a difference between "desire" and "orientation". A difference that I feel ought to be recognized rather than dismissed as overtly similar (e.g. your implication that a heterosexual man "desiring" to cheat on his wife is somehow equivalent to a homosexual man seeking fulfillment through a committed marital relationship with another man).

I share in your belief that God has commanded against fornication and adultery for all -- regardless of sexual orientation.

[smac97]

Smac and jwhitlock

I apologize, I did not mean to offend with the comment on suicide.

Okey doke. You weren't the first to play that card, and you won't be the last.

And I'm not suggesting that we change the restored gospel because gay people are making the horrific and wrong choice to end their lives. And I certainly have no intent of laying those suicides at the feet of you or anyone else on this board.

Then why on earth inject it into this thread? Don't worry about answering. Just food for thought.

I started my comments on this thread with the hypothesis that we are in a quandary... We are called upon to reach out with love and compassion to our gay brothers & sisters. And yet, what we have to offer them within the church doesn't always look much like love and compassion.

I'm not interested in such a navel-gazing exercise. We offer the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ. It will not appeal to everyone, particularly those in the thrall of worldly beliefs that things like adultery, fornication, homosexual behavior, and other forms of sexual expression are just hunky dory.

Our job, then, is to make living the Gospel a priority. If we live it, if we let our "light so shine," so to speak, then those willing to consider the Gospel and its standards.

Our job is decidedly not to revamp standards of sexual behavior so as to give preferential treatment to certain groupss.

We, in the church, do an amazing job of teaching the plan of salvation to our kids. We are great at it. We diligently and beautifully live it with our children in our homes. We elevate it on the altars of the temple. We role model it in almost all that we do. And that's a good thing. But when the small percentage of our youth who are gay get hit with the realization that they can't have what we taught them to hold dear - it is devastating. How do we still make sure they feel the love of the gospel and the compassion of the church?

The same way we treat any other person struggling with temptation.

What we don't do, however, is suggest to them that their temptation is special, that it would be okay to indulge in it but for the old codgers in Salt Lake, that dating websites expressly designed to facilitate this prohibited behavior are, as you put it, "something that is needed."

I continue to be amazed and appalled at this statement.

Do you likewise endorse websites designed to facilitate adultery and fornication? Are such websites "something that is needed" in the LDS Church as well?

These are not rhetorical questions. I'd really like to see you respond.

Here, with the OP of this thread, we have Brother Markle who wants what we, as a church, raised him to want.

No, we don't. We did not raise him to disregard the commandments of God.

When an adulterer cheats on his wife, we, as a church, didn't raise him to do that.

When an unmarried person commits fornication, we, as a church, didn't raise him to do that.

Holy cow. This is a very illuminating thread.

He wants a loving relationship. A helpmeet.

And a married man in a rocky point in his marriage may want "a living relationship" or "a helpmeet" in the form of a mistress.

By your reckoning, this is just fine. But by the reckoning of the Restored Gospel, it is not.

However misguided it may be, he is creating a website for others to also seek that loving relationship within their LDS community.

I see. And if a church member creates a website for married Mormons seeking a "loving relationship" outside of their marriage, will you support that endeavor?

If a church member creates a website for unmarried Mormons to seek out opportunities to fornicate, will you support that endeavor?

Again, these are not rhetorical questions. I'd like to see your answers.

And I don't see much love or compassion for him here on this board.

Mr. Markle is creating a money-making enterprise with the express purpose of facilitating sexual behavior amongst Mormons which is expressly prohibited in their faith. For that I am called callous, accused of pushing gays into suicide, and now, that I am lacking in "love or compassion" for wanting to adhere to the standards of the Restored Gospel.

In all candor, I'm okay with that. Keep firing away. I don't think the "If you disagree with me you aren't loving/compassionate" line of reasoning is any more sound than the "if you don't embrace/endorse homosexual behavior, gays will commit suicide and it'll be your fault" trope.

Not a lot of empathy being sent his way.

He's not here. He has also not demonstrated pure motives. I don't think Church members should empathize with efforts to undermine their faith.

I'm not trying to call anyone to repentance but rather have a discussion on how well we're meeting that charge from our Prophet. And how we could do better.

Maybe I'm misguided. Maybe I'm coming across as arrogant. If so, I apologize.

With respect, I think you are misguided. I think you have not given this matter as much thought as you think you have.

As Smac has pointed out, the standard may be universal but the sacrifice being asked of homosexuals in this regard far exceeds that being asked of heterosexuals.

So adherence to a universal standard is harder for some than for others. That is special or unique ... how, exactly?

I don't like the idea of creating martyrs out of homosexuals. Yes, they have a struggle. But so do others. Some struggle with adultery, or with fornication, or with pornography, or with substance abuse, or with violence, or with mental illness, and on and on and on. We, as a Church, are supposed to show compassion, patience, love and understanding to our brothers and sisters.

We all have our faults. But elevating one form of temptation, SSA, over other types of temptation (which can be just as difficult to cope with as SSA) has no value. Zip. Nada. I think people like you only do it because the World has made a pet project of lionizing homosexuality and putting it on equal footing with heterosexuality (note your apparent indignation when I noted that the Restored Gospel privileges heterosexual behavior over homosexual behavior).

How do we embrace that sacrifice and embrace those called upon to make it?

With love and compassion. There is no question about that.

But that is not, I think, what Markle is looking for. He wants to change the doctrines. He wants to encourage homosexual Mormons to go out and engage in excommunicable behavior.

And you admire him for this and suggest that his website is "something that is needed" in the LDS Church.

Again, the mind reels.

-Smac

Edited January 15, 2013 by smac97

[glitterNgold]

I suspect that critics of the Church view this as a distinction without a difference. Opposition to homosexual behavior is, in the minds of some, per se bigotry.

Thanks,

-Smac

Why do you use the word "opposition"? Why not use something like "indifference" or something. Do homosexuals oppose heterosexual behaviors? I think it more likely that they just aren't interested in it. Maybe more people could try being indifferent to the activities than opposed to them?