Dating Website For Mormons With Same-Sex Attraction

[Senator]

Smac,

Can you point me to statements made by the church or church leaders that speaks to all forms of same-sex behavior as being against the commands of God?

[smac97]

Smac,

Can you point me to statements made by the church or church leaders that speaks to all forms of same-sex behavior as being against the commands of God?

Um, not off hand. But I also do not have on hand any statements made by church leaders that speak to "all forms" of adultery, or fornication, etc.

Here are a few which I found in 2 minutes on the LDS website:

http://classic.scriptures.lds.org/en/gs/h/41

http://www.lds.org/ensign/1995/10/same-gender-attraction?lang=eng

Here:

The First Presidency has declared that “there is a distinction between [1] immoral thoughts and feelings and [2] participating in either immoral heterosexual or any homosexual behavior.”

And here:

In their 14 November 1991 letter concerning the importance of the law of chastity, the First Presidency declared: “Sexual relations are proper only between husband and wife appropriately expressed within the bonds of marriage. Any other sexual contact, including fornication, adultery, and homosexual and lesbian behavior, is sinful.”

http://www.lds.org/liahona/2007/10/helping-those-who-struggle-with-same-gender-attraction?lang=eng

As fellow Church members, families, and friends, we need to recognize that those attracted to the same gender face some unique restrictions regarding expression of their feelings. While same-gender attraction is real, there must be no physical expression of this attraction. The desire for physical gratification does not authorize immorality by anyone. Such feelings can be powerful, but they are never so strong as to deprive anyone of the freedom to choose worthy conduct.

http://www.lds.org/manual/god-loveth-his-children/god-loveth-his-children?lang=eng

It is better to choose as friends those who do not publicly display their homosexual feelings. The careful selection of friends and mentors who lead constructive, righteous lives is one of the most important steps to being productive and virtuous. Association with those of the same gender is natural and desirable, so long as you set wise boundaries to avoid improper and unhealthy emotional dependency, which may eventually result in physical and sexual intimacy. There is moral risk in having so close a relationship with one friend of the same gender that it may lead to vices the Lord has condemned. Our most important relationships are with our own families because our ties to them can be eternal.

Thanks,

-Smac

[ControlFreak]

Who has suggested that homosexual members leave the church and "start their own religion?" Please provide a link to this post. I reject such a suggestion.

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/59765-dating-website-for-mormons-with-same-sex-attraction/#entry1209212442 #11

Apparently you weren't offended enough when you read it to notice, but I was. I appreciate that you disagree.

And you are bearing false witness when you say that we have been saying that homosexual "desires are on the same level as a homewrecker." The Church's position is that homosexual behavior is prohibited. As is adultery. As is fornication. And rape. And incest. And pedophilia. These are all different types and degrees of sexual sin, but they are all very serious. And they are all sin.

All sin is sin, but I dare say that comparisons are important in the eyes of those being compared.

Should I compare your desire to be very rude in your forum posts, which is unchrist-like and therefore sin enough to keep you from the Celestial Kingdom, with a serial rapist? Would that be fair? I mean, sin is sin after all?

By the way, what makes you so certain of the seriousness of homosexual behavior? The quote you dropped from Alma referred to a heterosexual relationship that was capable of creating a child without the proper family it deserved. I daresay it isn't the same thing. Heterosexual sin brings far worse consequences upon the innocent.

In the end, I don't think our positions are as far apart as you would like to think. However, the tone in which we are presenting it surely is. How you can remain on the boards with constant witty rebuttals such as "utter crap" is beyond me. It is offensive and allows you to win arguements because no one wants to deal with such childishness. Including me.

[go_utes01]

http://www.mormondia...entry1209212442 #11

Apparently you weren't offended enough when you read it to notice, but I was. I appreciate that you disagree.

Apparently your desire to be offended or find offense got in the way of your reading comprehension. Nowhere in that entry does it say that homosexual members should leave the Church and start their own religion. What it does say is those that wish to force the Lord to change His Church, should possibly start their own religion that is more in line with their beliefs. You may not agree with this sentiment, or think that it is a bit hyperbolic, but it definitely does not say what you claim it does.

Edited January 15, 2013 by go_utes01

[Senator]

Um, not off hand. But I also do not have on hand any statements made by church leaders that speak to "all forms" of adultery, or fornication, etc.

Here are a few which I found in 2 minutes on the LDS website:

http://classic.scrip....org/en/gs/h/41

http://www.lds.org/e...action?lang=eng

Here:

The First Presidency has declared that “there is a distinction between [1] immoral thoughts and feelings and [2] participating in either immoral heterosexual or any homosexual behavior.”

And here:

In their 14 November 1991 letter concerning the importance of the law of chastity, the First Presidency declared: “Sexual relations are proper only between husband and wife appropriately expressed within the bonds of marriage. Any other sexual contact, including fornication, adultery, and homosexual and lesbian behavior, is sinful.”

http://www.lds.org/l...action?lang=eng

As fellow Church members, families, and friends, we need to recognize that those attracted to the same gender face some unique restrictions regarding expression of their feelings. While same-gender attraction is real, there must be no physical expression of this attraction. The desire for physical gratification does not authorize immorality by anyone. Such feelings can be powerful, but they are never so strong as to deprive anyone of the freedom to choose worthy conduct.

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

It is better to choose as friends those who do not publicly display their homosexual feelings. The careful selection of friends and mentors who lead constructive, righteous lives is one of the most important steps to being productive and virtuous. Association with those of the same gender is natural and desirable, so long as you set wise boundaries to avoid improper and unhealthy emotional dependency, which may eventually result in physical and sexual intimacy. There is moral risk in having so close a relationship with one friend of the same gender that it may lead to vices the Lord has condemned. Our most important relationships are with our own families because our ties to them can be eternal.

Thanks,

-Smac

Thank you.

Wow! My heart really, really, goes out to such individuals in the church.

Edited January 15, 2013 by Senator

[smac97]

http://www.mormondia...entry1209212442 #11

Apparently you weren't offended enough when you read it to notice, but I was. I appreciate that you disagree.

Apparently you haven't realized that I did not read it in the first place, hence my request for a link to it.

All sin is sin, but I dare say that comparisons are important in the eyes of those being compared.

I would agree with that. But sexual sin is extremely serious, so comparisons between its various types is appropriate.

Should I compare your desire to be very rude in your forum posts,

Your umbrage is selective. I have used the word "crap." Yes, it's a blunt word. But I've been accused of being "callous," of fomenting gay suicides, of lacking empathy, and so on. Where's your indignation against those statements?

which is unchrist-like and therefore sin enough to keep you from the Celestial Kingdom,

I have not presumed to judge anyone's destination, nor their proximity to Christlike behavior. Unlike you, who have done both of those things.

Where's your indignation about that?

with a serial rapist?

Is using the word "crap" on par with being a serial rapist?

I'll let you answer that question.

Meanwhile, is sexual sin serious? Yes.

Adultery? Yes.

Fornication? Yes.

Homosexual behavior? Yes.

Are they "equal" in their severity? Dunno. I'll leave that to God to sort out. All I know is that A) these are very serious transgressions, and B) there are people in the world, including people in the LDS Church, who contravene the Restored Gospel by suggesting that one particular type of sexual sin, homosexual behavior, is not sinful. I find that problematic.

By the way, what makes you so certain of the seriousness of homosexual behavior?

I have studied the matter, including scriptural references, modern prophetic writings, and medical/sociological data.

The quote you dropped from Alma referred to a heterosexual relationship that was capable of creating a child without the proper family it deserved. I daresay it isn't the same thing. Heterosexual sin brings far worse consequences upon the innocent.

I'm not particularly interested in ranking the various severities of sexual sin. They are very serious, let's leave it at that.

In the end, I don't think our positions are as far apart as you would like to think.

Perhaps. And yet only one of us has presumed to judge the righteousness of the other. That was you.

However, the tone in which we are presenting it surely is.

This hectoring about "tone" is coming from the guy who has declared me unchristlike and having lost my salvation.

The irony is ... rich.

How you can remain on the boards with constant witty rebuttals such as "utter crap" is beyond me.

I have said a lot more than that. A lot more. And yet you are ignoring 99.9% of what I have said to focus on a single word you dislike.

It is offensive

Again, your umbrage is selective. I have used the word "crap." Yes, it's a blunt word. But I've been accused of being "callous," of fomenting gay suicides, of lacking empathy, of being unchristlike (that was your contribution), of not being bound for the Celestial Kingdom (that was yours, too) and so on. Where's your indignation against those statements?

and allows you to win arguements because no one wants to deal with such childishness. Including me.

I would submit that your grousing about a single word, while simultaneously failing to address the considerable amount of substantive commentary I have presented, means that you are not willing or able to engage in this discussion.

So bow out if you like. I'll take my usage of "crap" over your judgmentalism any day of the week.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

Thank you.

Wow! My heart really, really, goes out to such individuals in the church.

Same here.

That said, my compassion does not go so far as to want to tell these people that the commandments of God are optional, or that their trials are privileged above others in such a way as to let them engage in behavior prohibited to the rest of us.

Thanks,

-Smac

[ControlFreak]

Apparently you haven't realized that I did not read it in the first place, hence my request for a link to it.

You always could have assumed that I was quoting someone, since I stated that I was.

I would agree with that. But sexual sin is extremely serious, so comparisons between its various types is appropriate.

I see what you are saying, but I very very strongly disagree. Necking and petting is considered sexual sin, but it only hurts those involved. Homosexual behavior is considered sin, but again, it only hurts those involved. Heterosexual fornication and adultery and very damaging to families and to unwanted children, and thus, in my opinion, deserve to be in an entirely different category.

Your umbrage is selective. I have used the word "crap." Yes, it's a blunt word. But I've been accused of being "callous," of fomenting gay suicides, of lacking empathy, and so on. Where's your indignation against those statements?

Callous is not a pejorative beyond its proper dictionary definition. "Crap" is an insulting and intentionally rude word. And I agree with rockpond that your response to gay suicides was callous, even if you had a valid point. Callous only implies you were insensitive in your presentation, not untruthful.

I certainly wouldn't accuse you individually of fomenting suicides, that is just hyperbole. My only intent was to suggest that a softer response to Mormon gays would be appropriate given that they are frequently driven to suicide directly because of their inability to meet expectations in the culture they were born into. While I don't have any danish studies to prove this, I have personally known an unfortunately high number of people who both attempted and succeeded specifically because of this.

I have not presumed to judge anyone's destination, nor their proximity to Christlike behavior. Unlike you, who have done both of those things.

Where's your indignation about that?

I never meant to imply anything about your destination. I only meant to say that unkindness is equally damning as homosexual behavior in keeping you from the celestial kingdom without intervention. "For all have sinned...".

Is using the word "crap" on par with being a serial rapist?

I'll let you answer that question.

Gladly. No. It most definitely not on par. But neither is having a committed homosexual relationship on par with betraying a spouse and breaking up a family.

Perhaps. And yet only one of us has presumed to judge the righteousness of the other. That was you.

Again, you misread my intent. I'm sorry you did and that I don't communicate more clearly.

This hectoring about "tone" is coming from the guy who has declared me unchristlike and having lost my salvation.

The irony is ... rich.

I honestly doubt that you thought that I meant that. It was just too easy to use as some good leverage to throw back a jab or two, wasn't it?

So bow out if you like. I'll take my usage of "crap" over your judgmentalism any day of the week.

I'm actually interested in discussing both your points and my own. My focus on your use of the word "crap" was more the fact that it destroys productive dialogue and is very distracting.

This topic is very sensitive to me because of the people that I have known in my personal life who are gay. I think it is appropriate for the church to clearly state its position and to stick to it. But at the same time, I think it is also appropriate to acknowledge that the church's (God's) position makes for a particularly challenging environment to our gay brothers and sisters. Most of all though, I think it requires us to not be flippant or, yes, callous in pointing out our position.

So how do we as members insure that we follow the church's recent examples (Elder Jensen, mormonsandgays.com) in showing understanding without giving up ground? I think this new website is obviously against church principles, but at the same time, I am at least understanding of a gay mormon's desire to find a committed relationship with someone who feels and thinks similarly to him/herself.

[Tacenda]

Smac, you by chance aren't Wade England incarnated? He was just as passionate. I haven't seen him on the board for quite awhile. I'm just kidding about the Wade bit.

[glitterNgold]

It really is too bad Jesus didn't meet up with a homosexual parent and get the conversation recorded.

That would have saved us all a bunch of trouble.

[Sky]

I, for one, never encouraged the breaking of any commandments, including homosexual behavior. I acknowledge that this is a sinful behavior that should be avoided if one intends to remain faithful to the covenants they've made, either at baptism or in the temple, or both.

That said, I think it is profoundly unfair to compare homosexual behavior with adultery and fornication, on a number of different levels. Homosexual members of the Church did not choose to be attracted to their own gender, and will never really have the opportunity to be with somebody that they are fully attracted to in this life. Whereas with fornicators or adulterers, those relationships still have the potential to be sanctioned by the Church, assuming those unions are heterosexual. As an example, I happen to have a brother who was with his girlfriend and they conceived a child together before they were married. His girlfriend is now his wife, and he is in full fellowship in the Church and was recently ordained an Elder. If my brother were a homosexual, he would have been expected to dump his boyfriend and become celibate or marry a woman before he could be in good status with the Church. So obviously, these two scenarios are profoundly different, and deserve to to acknowledged as such. Yes, fornication and adultery and homosexual behavior are all considered sinful, but what is being asked of gay members isn't exactly the same as what is being asked of straight members.

I realize it makes some people uncomfortable to treat homosexuals different or put them in a "special" category, but I believe they deserve our deepest sympathies, more so than other kinds of dispositions or temptations or transgressions. The Church must think so too, otherwise they wouldn't have gone out of their way to reach out to gay people through mormonsandgays.org. There is no such thing as a Church website called mormonsandfornicators.org or mormonsandadulterers.org. So these temptations aren't exactly on the same footing.

Edited January 16, 2013 by Sky

[Tacenda]

I, for one, never encouraged the breaking of any commandments, including homosexual behavior. I acknowledge that this is a sinful behavior that should be avoided if one intends to remain faithful to the covenants they've made, either at baptism or in the temple, or both.

That said, I think it is profoundly unfair to compare homosexual behavior with adultery and fornication, on a number of different levels. Homosexual members of the Church did not choose to be attracted to their own gender, and will never really have the opportunity to be with somebody that they are fully attracted to in this life. Whereas with fornicators or adulterers, those relationships still have the potential to be sanctioned by the Church, assuming those unions are heterosexual. As an example, I happen to have a brother who was with his girlfriend and they conceived a child together before they were married. His girlfriend is now his wife, and he is in full fellowship in the Church and was recently ordained an Elder. If my brother were a homosexual, he would have been expected to dump his boyfriend and become celibate or marry a woman before he could be in good status with the Church. So obviously, these two scenarios are profoundly different, and deserve to to acknowledged as such. Yes, fornication and adultery and homosexual behavior are all considered sinful, but what is being asked of gay members isn't exactly the same as what is being asked of straight members.

I realize it makes some people uncomfortable to treat homosexuals different or put them in a "special" category, but I believe they deserve our deepest sympathies, more so than other kinds to dispositions or temptations or transgressions. The Church must think so too, otherwise they wouldn't have gone out of their way to reach out to gay people through mormonsandgays.org. There is no such thing as a Church website called mormonsandfornicators.org or mormonsandadulterers.org. So these temptations aren't exactly on the same footing.

You totally get it!

[Sethbag]

I agree with Smac that homosexuality is not compatible with the LDS church. Everyone gets to have their own opinions, so I respect that others may and do differ.

To be honest, I have no idea why gay people would even want to be in the LDS church in any way, shape, or form. And I honestly don't understand why the LDS church is doing anything to try to make them feel a little more welcome*. They're not about to condone gay practice, so anyone staying both LDS and gay must remain celibate (in both its original and current meanings) for the rest of their lives, which for most people would be a living hell. Who needs that?

Mind you, I'm an apostate so I wouldn't mind seeing everyone wash their hands of the LDS church, but at least heterosexual white people can find pleasant, reasonably supportive society amongst the LDS. And non-white heterosexuals can too if they can form, locally, a sufficient critical mass. But gays? Seriously, this is like oil and water.

Obviously others disagree with me and Smac on this, because they proclaim themselves both LDS and gay. To them I say: knock yourselves out. But I think it's like trying to teach a pig to sing. In the end it doesn't work, and it annoys the pig.

*other than to avoid the PR hits that they've been taking recently by being anti-gay, and heaven knows in recent years the church has put great effort into burnishing their image with the general public

Edited January 16, 2013 by Sethbag

[go_utes01]

I agree with Smac that homosexuality is not compatible with the LDS church. Everyone gets to have their own opinions, so I respect that others may and do differ.

To be honest, I have no idea why gay people would even want to be in the LDS church in any way, shape, or form. And I honestly don't understand why the LDS church is doing anything to try to make them feel a little more welcome*. They're not about to condone gay practice, so anyone staying both LDS and gay must remain celibate (in both its original and current meanings) for the rest of their lives, which for most people would be a living hell. Who needs that?

Obviously others disagree with me and Smac on this, because they proclaim themselves both LDS and gay. To them I say: knock yourselves out. But I think it's like trying to teach a pig to sing. In the end it doesn't work, and it annoys the pig.

*other than to avoid the PR hits that they've been taking recently by being anti-gay, and heaven knows in recent years the church has been great effort into burnishing their image with the general public

Who is the pig in your analogy, the gay member or the Church? Why would a gay member want to remain in the Church? Possibly, because they believe it is God's Church on earth and that it is important to their salvation. Maybe because they have had strong spiritual experiences in the Church. Possibly because they have strong cultural/familial ties to the Church. Why would the Church want gay members to remain in the Church (other than for PR reasons)? Possibly because they believe that the gospel as taught by the Church is important and beneficial to the lives of its members (regardless of sexual orientation) and want as many of Heavenly Father's children as possible to experience those blessings. Your post seems to equate SSA or homosexual orientation as the only thing or overriding characteristic or concern for an individual. I do not believe your supposition is accurate.

Edited January 16, 2013 by go_utes01

[ControlFreak]

I agree with Smac that homosexuality is not compatible with the LDS church.

With the church as it is and has been, but being black used to be pretty incompatible too.

At any rate, washing your hands is one legitimate option, trying to help people be more compassionate is another.

In the end, with no real support or sympathy in bearing the unique trial of self-inflicted celibacy (different than unavoidable celibacy), I don't know why they'd stay either. But if they want to, I'd like to do my part in helping them feel supported and welcome.

[smac97]

I see what you are saying, but I very very strongly disagree. Necking and petting is considered sexual sin, but it only hurts those involved.

That's debateable. But even if it's true, so what? Fornication "only hurts those involved," yet nobody is arguing that fornicators be given some sort of preferential treatment or exemption from the Law of Chastity.

Homosexual behavior is considered sin, but again, it only hurts those involved.

Well, that's certainly debateable. But so what? Viewing pornography could also be construed as "only hurt(ing) those involved," yet nobody is arguing that those who view pornography be given some sort of preferential treatment or exemption from the Law of Chastity.

Heterosexual fornication and adultery and very damaging to families and to unwanted children, and thus, in my opinion, deserve to be in an entirely different category.

So is pornography. So is homosexual behavior (perhaps you are familiar with Carol Lynn Pearson's husband and son-in-law).

They are all sexual sins. They are all serious.

Alma described the sexual sins of his son, Corianton, as being "an abomination in the sight of the Lord; yea, most abominable above all sins save it be the shedding of innocent blood or denying the Holy Ghost" (Alma 39:5).

Do you take exception to that comparison?

Leviticus 18:22 describes homosexual behavior as "an abomination." 1 Tim. 1:10 describes those who engage in homosexual behavior as "them that defile themselves with mankind."

Do you take exception to these descriptions?

Personally, I see little value in arguing about the relative severity of homosexual behavior as compared to other grave sins such as adultery or fornication. They are all very serious sins.

Callous is not a pejorative beyond its proper dictionary definition. "Crap" is an insulting and intentionally rude word. And I agree with rockpond that your response to gay suicides was callous, even if you had a valid point.

From my perspective, the exploitation of gay suicides as a guilt-tripping gimmick is far more repulsive than use of the word "crap."

Let's review what Rockpond said when he/she introduced the topic into this thread: "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."

To which I responded: "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.

And, later, this: "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."

Meanwhile, what else have I said in this thread about gay suicides? Here's a sampling:

"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."

"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."

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):

"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."

"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."

Why not use something like "indifference" or something.

"Because God has said this behavior is wrong. Moreover, the data indicate that this behavior is harmful. I am not indifferent to those who struggle with it. I want to help where I can."

"Nobody has suggested that we not try to be understanding, compassionate, etc. towards people with SSA."

"My position is that church members with SSA should stay with the Church and be asked to obey the commandments just like the rest of us."

Wow! My heart really, really, goes out to such individuals in the church.

"Same here."

I just don't think these comments are "callous." And to the extent I have been callous, it has been toward people who are exploiting gay suicides for polemical advantage against the LDS Church. I think that's repulsive.

Callous only implies you were insensitive in your presentation, not untruthful.

I reject the charge. I have not been callous toward people with SSA, or toward the topic of gay suicides. If I have been callous, it has been toward people who exploit gay suicides as a guilt-tripping tactic against those with whom they disagree.

I certainly wouldn't accuse you individually of fomenting suicides, that is just hyperbole.

Well, Rockpond did. Not me individually, but the entire LDS Church. And he/she is far from the first person to have done that, nor will he/she be the last.

My only intent was to suggest that a softer response to Mormon gays would be appropriate given that they are frequently driven to suicide directly because of their inability to meet expectations in the culture they were born into.

First, I have made no response to Mormon gays. I was responding to people exploiting gay suicides.

Second, you were a bit more polite and circumspect (note your use of passive voice), but this still sounds like you are blaming the LDS Church for gay suicides. That ain't cool.

I have previously presented sociological data showing A) that there appears to be a correlation between homosexuality and a host of harmful behaviors, and B) that there is a correlation (noted amongst Mormons) between religiosity and reduced instances of suicide. These data appear to contradict your premise that Mormonism foments suicide.

While I don't have any danish studies to prove this, I have personally known an unfortunately high number of people who both attempted and succeeded specifically because of this.

I can't speak as to such anecdotal evidence.

It most definitely not on par. But neither is having a committed homosexual relationship on par with betraying a spouse and breaking up a family.

Again, I'm not interested in stratifying serious sexual sins. They are all serious.

I'm actually interested in discussing both your points and my own. My focus on your use of the word "crap" was more the fact that it destroys productive dialogue and is very distracting.

Accusations that Mormonism foments gay suicide are distracting.

Exploiting gay suicides to gain polemical advantage is distracting.

Grousing about me using a word you don't like is distracting.

Trying to portray homosexual behavior as somehow deserving a special exemption from the Law of Chastity is distracting.

This topic is very sensitive to me because of the people that I have known in my personal life who are gay.

I can respect that.

I think it is appropriate for the church to clearly state its position and to stick to it. But at the same time, I think it is also appropriate to acknowledge that the church's (God's) position makes for a particularly challenging environment to our gay brothers and sisters.

Okay.

Most of all though, I think it requires us to not be flippant or, yes, callous in pointing out our position. So how do we as members insure that we follow the church's recent examples (Elder Jensen, mormonsandgays.com) in showing understanding without giving up ground? I think this new website is obviously against church principles,

First, I have not been callous or flippant toward people struggling with SSA.

Otherwise, I agree with what you say. And yet one participant in this very thread that it might be "needed" in the LDS Church.

but at the same time, I am at least understanding of a gay mormon's desire to find a committed relationship with someone who feels and thinks similarly to him/herself.

First, I am understanding of that desire.

Second, I cannot condone it insofar as it contravenes the commandments of God. There are people in unhappy marriages who "desire to find a committed relationship with someone," but that desire is wrong insofar as it seeks a relationship outside of that person's marriage. There are single people who "desire to find a committed relationship with someone," but that desire is wrong insofar as it includes prohibited sexual behavior.

Third, Mr. Markle's website may perhaps be designed to facilitate gay "marriages." But we all know that it's also designed to facilitate more than that: fornication and homosexual behavior.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

To be honest, I have no idea why gay people would even want to be in the LDS church in any way, shape, or form.

Well, because the LDS Church is what it claims to be. A gay person can certainly feel the Spirit and receive a testimony of the Restored Gospel.

And we, as Church members, should welcome them into the Church.

And I honestly don't understand why the LDS church is doing anything to try to make them feel a little more welcome*.

Because the Christ, and hence His Church, is a "physician." We are all sinners in one way or another. We are also all children of God. All of us belong in the Church. The only question is whether we want to do what is necessary to enter and stay in it.

I admire the Church's efforts toward people with SSA. They have a great burden to deal with, particularly when the Restored Gospel prohibits same-sex behavior in an era with many voices in the World telling them that same-sex behavior is perfectly acceptable.

They're not about to condone gay practice, so anyone staying both LDS and gay must remain celibate (in both its original and current meanings) for the rest of their lives, which for most people would be a living hell. Who needs that?

I disagree that protracted celibacy is "a living hell." There are plenty of people in the Church who are celibate (divorced, widowed, never-married, gay, etc.). It can be done.

Meanwhile, "who needs that," you ask? Well, those who believe in the promises of the Restored Gospel. The Old Testament's Job had his trials, but he endured them because he knew that blessings were in store if he did so.

"Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him." (1 Cor. :9).

Mind you, I'm an apostate so I wouldn't mind seeing everyone wash their hands of the LDS church, but at least heterosexual white people can find pleasant, reasonably supportive society amongst the LDS.

Ah. Now we're racists, too.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Sethbag]

Who is the pig in your analogy, the gay member or the Church? Why would a gay member want to remain in the Church? Possibly, because they believe it is God's Church on earth and that it is important to their salvation. Maybe because they have had strong spiritual experiences in the Church. Possibly because they have strong cultural/familial ties to the Church. Why would the Church want gay members to remain in the Church (other than for PR reasons)? Possibly because they believe that the gospel as taught by the Church is important and beneficial to the lives of its members (regardless of sexual orientation) and want as many of Heavenly Father's children as possible to experience those blessings. Your post seems to equate SSA or homosexual orientation as the only thing or overriding characteristic or concern for an individual. I do not believe your supposition is accurate.

The pig is, as always with these kinds of metaphors, in the eyes of the beholder. If you wish to say that the homosexual is the pig, I think that says something about you. You don't need to point out that my saying the church is the pig says something about me, because that would be redundant: I am a professed apostate.

The LDS faithful viewpoint, as you have pointed out, I find problematic for several reasons.

It advocates a sacrifice of the life we know we have, this one, in the interests of a proposed utopian life to come - a life whose reality is not, shall we say, beyond questioning.

When offering someone a vision of utopia as an incentive, it helps for that utopian vision to be something attractive to the person. What is the Mormon vision for a gay member? That they will endure a life of celibacy and lack of romance, intimacy with someone he or she is attracted to, and a complete and utter lack of sexual fulfillment (including even the modest fulfillment of masturbation) in order that, after they die, God will "cure" them of their homosexuality, and they can enjoy an eternity married to someone of the opposite sex and procreating spirit children without number, populating their own worlds in the eternities to come. The followup question should be obvious: the gay member is not attracted to members of the opposite sex. How, then, is the utopian vision of an eternity spend married to someone of the opposite sex to attract them?

I freely admit I'm having trouble seeing how such a vision would be attractive to a homosexual, but I am not a homosexual, so it's quite likely I am unable to empathize accurately with how they might feel about this. It's entirely possible that there are homosexuals who long for an eternity spent with someone of the opposite sex enough to forbear any intimacy here on Earth with someone they are attracted to now.

[smac97]

In the end, with no real support or sympathy in bearing the unique trial of self-inflicted celibacy (different than unavoidable celibacy), I don't know why they'd stay either. But if they want to, I'd like to do my part in helping them feel supported and welcome.

I don't understand how gay celibacy is "self-inflicted" but heterosexual celibacy is "unavoidable." A heterosexual Mormon who chooses to obey the commandments of God is not faced with "unavoidable" celibacy. It's a choice. The same goes for Mormons with SSA.

Thanks,

-Smac

[go_utes01]

I freely admit I'm having trouble seeing how such a vision would be attractive to a homosexual, but I am not a homosexual, so it's quite likely I am unable to empathize accurately with how they might feel about this. It's entirely possible that there are homosexuals who long for an eternity spent with someone of the opposite sex enough to forbear any intimacy here on Earth with someone they are attracted to now.

9 But as it is written, ^aEye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath^bprepared for them that love him.

[ControlFreak]

I don't understand how gay celibacy is "self-inflicted" but heterosexual celibacy is "unavoidable." A heterosexual Mormon who chooses to obey the commandments of God is not faced with "unavoidable" celibacy. It's a choice. The same goes for Mormons with SSA.

Thanks,

-Smac

Heterosexuals with no willing marriage partner are unavoidably celibate. Gays that mutually love someone but choose to follow the church must inflict that celibacy upon themselves.

[go_utes01]

Heterosexuals with no willing marriage partner are unavoidably celibate. Gays that mutually love someone but choose to follow the church must inflict that celibacy upon themselves.

I think we have different definitions of "unavoidable." It seems to me that any person, even those that cannot find a willing partner to marry them, can (with a few hundred dollars - not actually sure what the going rate is) find a willing sexual partner. If you mean a believing LDS, who is unable to find a marriage partner, and still wants to live the law of chastity as proclaimed by Heavenly Father, then you would be correct - but that is equally true of a homosexual member, right?

Edited January 16, 2013 by go_utes01

[smac97]

Heterosexuals with no willing marriage partner are unavoidably celibate.

Um, no. They are not incapable of having sex with someone other than a "willing marriage partner."

Gays that mutually love someone but choose to follow the church must inflict that celibacy upon themselves.

A heterosexual Mormon who loves someone who is not married to them, but who chooses to follow the Church's teachings on sexual behavior, must also "inflict celibacy upon themselves."

Speaking of loaded terminology, your use of "inflict" is risible.

-Smac

[california boy]

SMAC, I am just curious why you even started this thread? You have gone on for post after post proclaiming that homosexuality is the same and adultery and fornication and other sexual sins.. Everyone knows that. What? Were people just giving way too much empathy to gays? Is that the point of your posting this?

[Kemara]

SMAC, I am just curious why you even started this thread?

Perhaps you might want to try reading the opening post, it seemed obvious to me and most everyone else.

You have gone on for post after post proclaiming that homosexuality is the same and adultery and fornication and other sexual sins.. Everyone knows that.

Everyone know's that? Really? Then why on earth are people going on for post after post arguing with Smac about this exact point?

What? Were people just giving way too much empathy to gays? Is that the point of your posting this?

Please remember your previous calls for civility when discussing topics such as these. Its simply not good enough for someone to call on others to be civil while not being prepared to do the same.

I am curious why you even made this post, it wasnt to deflect attention away from Smac's masterful handling of the topic was it?