Is There A Difference Between The Teachings Of Barb Young And Denver Snuffer?

[Scott Lloyd]

 

Then why does the church recommend gay men to be celibate in this life.  If the only path for exaltation is marrying a woman for eternity, why not require all gay members to find a willing wife and start the process here on earth? If they can't be happily married to a woman in this life, what makes you even think for a moment that gay men will be happy to be married to a woman in the next?  

 

If one believes, as I do, that SSA is a disorder that exists in mortality only, and if one believes in the doctrine of the resurrection, as I do, it is not difficult at all to conceive that such a disorder will be removed in the resurrection along with all other maladies, defects, diseases, injuries, etc.

 

That may not square with your view of things, but it is quite consistent with doctrinal beliefs pertaining to the resurrection.

--

Edited to add:

 

Incidentally, if my understanding is correct, not everyone who has same-sex attraction has that orientation exclusively. That is to say, depending where one is on the Kinsey Scale, he or she could find sexual gratification with someone of the opposite sex and, hence, could conceivably have a fulfilling and proper marital relationship in mortality. With such a person, it becomes a matter of suppressing any sexual feelings he might have toward anyone of either gender who is not his lawfully wedded spouse. The burden of obligation, then, is scarcely different than it is for any married heterosexual person.

[Scott Lloyd]

But I think we're making the same point, that it's the spirit of the question that's important.. Just because Affirmation believes & hopes that one day the church will accept gay relationships doesn't make it an apostate group and membership of the group wouldn't deny me my TR which is what bcspace seems to be implying.

 

ETA I was being facetious in making the point that if we take that question too literally there'd be very few organisations we would be able to join outside of the church.

I see your point.

[foster]

That is certainly not the only question in play by any means.  Another TR question reads: "Do you support, affiliate with, or agree with any group or individual whose teachings or practices are contrary to or oppose those accepted by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?"

And what is the Church Official stated explanation for that question? Your personal opinion is only applicable to you.

[Mark Beesley]

I've said it before, but let me repeat it here for emphasis: If I had a son -- or a daughter, for that matter -- who found him/herself in a situation where he/she was being subjected to unwanted sexual advances, and there were no other recourse, I would want him/her to defend him/herself physically, if need be, and would commend him/her for doing so. And I will make certain he/she understands that before I send him/her out into the world.

 

Not, Turn the other cheek???  

[Buzzard]

Quite frankly I really have no idea how to respond to your post.  You have managed to reduce the value of marriage down to two amebas reproducing.  If you think that marriage is about sex or a close friend is the same as a relationship with your wife, then I have nothing but sympathy for you and your wife.  If you were to ask your wife why she is married to you, I would not be surprised if she didn't even list sex in the top 5 reasons why you two are together.  If marriage is simply about having sex and reproducing, why  not line up each sex and match them together like a high school graduation.  

 

I never said God picks on gay people because they are not allowed to have sex together.  What I have CLEARLY said is this is way more than just about sex.  Evidently this is a concept you are simply unable to understand since this is your second post about the paramount importance of sex.  

Hardly. No one says that marriage is about sex only. But in both this world and in the world to come, marriage is about having a family. And with few exceptions, that requires the "S" word. But you missed MY point as well. I am most certainly not gay. But I have male friends, we talk on the phone, we go to each others houses, heck, I have even shared a very small tent with a few of them. My wife has had the same experiences with her friends, except she doesn't backpack, so no tent sharing. 

My wife is also my good friend. We hang out together, we support each other. And of course, there is the physical aspect. (BTW, you don't think it would make my wife's top 5. You are wrong.) You think I am obsessed, but while there are no scriptural commands to hang out with your buddies, there are multiple scriptural commands for a husband and wife to be together physically. I would be happy to provide a half dozen if you are not familiar with them already. So apparently God understands how important it is, which is why it is so important that it be used correctly, within the framework of a family-Man and Woman. Boyd K Packer, the apostle gays love to hate, has called appropriate use of this gift "The very key" to our happiness. To reduce it to mere breeding, or especially pre- or extra-marital recreation, is to take something holy, even mystical, and grind it in the dust. Sorry if you can't understand that. 

[california boy]

If one believes, as I do, that SSA is a disorder that exists in mortality only, and if one believes in the doctrine of the resurrection, as I do, it is not difficult at all to conceive that such a disorder will be removed in the resurrection along with all other maladies, defects, diseases, injuries, etc.

 

That may not square with your view of things, but it is quite consistent with doctrinal beliefs pertaining to the resurrection.

--

Edited to add:

 

Incidentally, if my understanding is correct, not everyone who has same-sex attraction has that orientation exclusively. That is to say, depending where one is on the Kinsey Scale, he or she could find sexual gratification with someone of the opposite sex and, hence, could conceivably have a fulfilling and proper marital relationship in mortality. With such a person, it becomes a matter of suppressing any sexual feelings he might have toward anyone of either gender who is not his lawfully wedded spouse. The burden of obligation, then, is scarcely different than it is for any married heterosexual person.

I assume you are just giving your opinion here, which is interesting but not really relevant on such an important topic.  Unless of course,  you have some doctrinal reference that SSA is just a disorder. maladies, defects, diseases like other physical handicaps, and that there will be no gay people after we are resurrected.  

 

I personally find your opinion on SSA as being some kind of disorder, maladies, defects, diseases to be a bit offensive, but you are entitled to your opinion.  

 

And btw, being gay is not like being bisexual.  You have been misinformed if you think it is.  There are very few gay men that have any orientation towards women.  If that was the case, then wouldn't most gay members do as you suggest and marry?  There are so few mixed orientation marriages that work under those conditions we have made a poster child out of the infamous Weed household as if his path is one that all could take.  Of course that is not the case and Mr. Weed emphasizes that fact repeatedly.  And the church counsels against such a course.

[california boy]

Hardly. No one says that marriage is about sex only. But in both this world and in the world to come, marriage is about having a family. And with few exceptions, that requires the "S" word. But you missed MY point as well. I am most certainly not gay. But I have male friends, we talk on the phone, we go to each others houses, heck, I have even shared a very small tent with a few of them. My wife has had the same experiences with her friends, except she doesn't backpack, so no tent sharing. 

My wife is also my good friend. We hang out together, we support each other. And of course, there is the physical aspect. (BTW, you don't think it would make my wife's top 5. You are wrong.) You think I am obsessed, but while there are no scriptural commands to hang out with your buddies, there are multiple scriptural commands for a husband and wife to be together physically. I would be happy to provide a half dozen if you are not familiar with them already. So apparently God understands how important it is, which is why it is so important that it be used correctly, within the framework of a family-Man and Woman. Boyd K Packer, the apostle gays love to hate, has called appropriate use of this gift "The very key" to our happiness. To reduce it to mere breeding, or especially pre- or extra-marital recreation, is to take something holy, even mystical, and grind it in the dust. Sorry if you can't understand that. 

I am pleased that you are starting to see that marriage is ia bit more than just about sex.  That is certainly an improvement from your original position where you stated. 

 

I gather that you feel that sexual activity (of a certain type) is the ONLY important part of an eternal relationship then.

 

 

 

Now if we can just get you to realize that camping with a friend is a much different relationship than the one you are married to.  

 

When I met with my stake president on this issue, I asked him if it was possible to have a male room mate.  He said he thought it would be unappropriate.  I asked him if I could have a female room mate.  He thought that would be inappropriate as well.  I asked him if I could have close male friends.  He referred me to the church pamphlet "God Loveth HIs Children" on this issue.

 

 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 ourties to them can be eternal.

 

 

 

So the strong guidance I received is, no male or female room mates, and no camping and hanging out with male friends.  Those kind of relationships are only available to straight members of the church.  

 

Being gay is not at all like the single sister in the ward that has never married.  She is freely allowed and even encouraged to date those single guys in the ward/stake.  She is allowed to have a room mate,   And maybe most important, she can look forward to spending eternity being one of the wives of some male god.  If you are gay, according to church belief, you are screwed in this life as well as the next unless you want to magically become straight.  Which brings me back to my original post

 

 

 

So what you are saying is that the only path for God's gay children for exaltation is if they choose in the next life to spend eternity with a woman having children, something they were unable or unwilling to do in this life.  If a gay member chooses to spend his entire earth life celibate rather than be with a woman, what makes you think they are looking forward to spending eternity married to a woman?

 

Whoopee.  I can hardly wait.  It is this very reason why I choose to leave the church.  I have absolutely no interest in spending eternity with a woman.  So there is absolutely no exaltation possible for me no matter how much I follow the church teachings.  It makes being celibate pointless doesn't it.

 

 

 

[Scott Lloyd]

I assume you are just giving your opinion here, which is interesting but not really relevant on such an important topic. Unless of course, you have some doctrinal reference that SSA is just a disorder. maladies, defects, diseases like other physical handicaps, and that there will be no gay people after we are resurrected.

I'm quite confident I'm on solid ground doctrinally with my opinion but would be open to having someone demonstrate the contrary, if they can.

The relevance is that you asked someone if he really believes a man not interested in marriage to a woman in mortality could be thus interested in the hereafter. I gave my opinion to demonstrate that it is not difficult to conceive of such a thing.

I personally find your opinion on SSA as being some kind of disorder, maladies, defects, diseases to be a bit offensive, but you are entitled to your opinion.

Likewise, I find offensive the notion that a mortal tendency or disposition for which there can be no righteous expression would be perpetuated in the eternities for one striving to live righteously. To me that would be out of character for a just and merciful God.

But I recognize this is a sensitive issue for both of us, and I'm optimistic that with a bit of effort, we can discuss this topic with mutual respect and civility.

And btw, being gay is not like being bisexual. You have been misinformed if you think it is. There are very few gay men that have any orientation towards women.

I know that the Kinsey Scale has been in place since the 1940s, so there must be some application for it. As to how common it is for any person to be at any given point on the scale, I acknowledge that I'm not well-enough acquainted with the literature to know.

If that was the case, then wouldn't most gay members do as you suggest and marry?

I don't know about "most." I'm only suggesting that it may be within the capacity of some to do so.

Not all heterosexual Church members honor their marital covenants, although it is certainly within their capacity to do so.

There are so few mixed orientation marriages that work under those conditions we have made a poster child out of the infamous Weed household as if his path is one that all could take. Of course that is not the case and Mr. Weed emphasizes that fact repeatedly.

I don't doubt that it would be demanding -- just as it is demanding to expect a heterosexual man to forsake and suppress any sexual attraction that he may have for women other than his own wife, but many do succeed.

Incidentally, I wondered why you applied the descriptor "infamous" to the Weed family. Are you unaware of the negative connotation of that word, or did you really mean to express the contempt inherent in that term?

And the church counsels against such a course.

I'm aware that the Church counsels against marriage as a "cure" for homosexuality. I'm not certain it counsels against marriage when it pertains to individuals who are capable of sustaining sexual attraction for someone of the opposite sex, even though they have some degree of SSA.

[Scott Lloyd]

Quite frankly I really have no idea how to respond to your post.  You have managed to reduce the value of marriage down to two amebas reproducing.  If you think that marriage is about sex or a close friend is the same as a relationship with your wife, then I have nothing but sympathy for you and your wife.  If you were to ask your wife why she is married to you, I would not be surprised if she didn't even list sex in the top 5 reasons why you two are together.  If marriage is simply about having sex and reproducing, why  not line up each sex and match them together like a high school graduation.  

 

I never said God picks on gay people because they are not allowed to have sex together.  What I have CLEARLY said is this is way more than just about sex.  Evidently this is a concept you are simply unable to understand since this is your second post about the paramount importance of sex.  

If the sexual and reproductive components are removed from a relationship, what remains is platonic love. And marriage is not necessary to express platonic love, deep and abiding though it may be.

[Calm]

Considering how people have reacted in the past and even in the present, I doubt that we can have a accurate picture of how many with SSA have entered into marriages. Even the Weed family took ten years to go public. And we can only know of the failures for those who have gone public as well. Both numbers are likely higher than we can tell.

On another note, variations in measurements have given varied percentages for those classified as homosexual, I believe the high is around 10% and the low usually 1-2%. Could not the difference be in part tied to how strongly or uniquely one feels SSA? If so, could it not be possible that one has 2% of the population experiencing solely SSA and the rest, 8% or so experiencing a mix and thus being able with some commitment and maybe counselling being able to live happily in a male/female marriage...and thus not become one of those in the narrative that those with SSA are almost always doomed to failure if they marry the opposite gender?

[Scott Lloyd]

Considering how people have reacted in the past and even in the present, I doubt that we can have a accurate picture of how many with SSA have entered into marriages. Even the Weed family took ten years to go public. And we can only know of the failures for those who have gone public as well. Both numbers are likely higher than we can tell.

On another note, variations in measurements have given varied percentages for those classified as homosexual, I believe the high is around 10% and the low usually 1-2%. Could not the difference be in part tied to how strongly or uniquely one feels SSA? If so, could it not be possible that one has 2% of the population experiencing solely SSA and the rest, 8% or so experiencing a mix and thus being able with some commitment and maybe counselling being able to live happily in a male/female marriage...and thus not become one of those in the narrative that those with SSA are almost always doomed to failure if they marry the opposite gender?

These are good questions.

 

I suspect too that at least some with SSA  who also have a degree of heterosexual orientation are not apt to admit it because they feel obligated to maintain some solidarity with the gay-rights movement.

 

Then, too, for many, it's not important enough to them to even mention it, as it would be for Latter-day Saints, for whom the only righteous expression of sexuality is within a heterosexual marriage.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

In more than five decades of Church membership, I don't recall a time when the Church considered being subject to homosexual temptation  to be a sin.

 

1999 Church Handbook of Instructions:

 

Homosexual behavior violates the commandments of God, is contrary to the purposes of human sexuality, distorts loving relationships, and deprives people of the blessings that can be found in family life and in the saving ordinances of the gospel. Those who persist in such behavior or

who influence others to do so are subject to Church discipline. Homosexual behavior can be forgiven through sincere repentance.

 

If members have homosexual thoughts or feelings or engage in homosexual behavior, Church leaders should help them have a clear understanding of faith in Jesus Christ, the process of repentance, and the purpose of life on earth. Leaders also should help them accept responsibility for their thoughts and actions and apply gospel principles in their lives.

 

2010 Church Handbook of Instructions:

Homosexual behavior violates the commandments of God, is contrary to the purposes of human sexuality, distorts loving relationships, and deprives people of the blessings that can be found in family life and in the saving ordinances of the gospel. Those who persist in such behavior or

who influence others to do so are subject to Church discipline. Homosexual behavior can be forgiven through sincere repentance.

 

If members have homosexual thoughts or feelings or engage in homosexual behavior, Church leaders should help them have a clear understanding of faith in Jesus Christ, the process of repentance, and the purpose of life on earth. Leaders also should help them accept responsibility for their thoughts and actions and apply gospel principles in their lives.

 

While opposing homosexual behavior, the Church reaches out with understanding and respect to individuals who are attracted to those of the same gender.

 

If members feel same-gender attraction but do not engage in any homosexual behavior, leaders should support and encourage them in their resolve to live the law of chastity and to control unrighteous thoughts. These members may receive Church callings. If they are qualified in every other way, they may also hold temple recommends and receive temple ordinances.

[thesometimesaint]

That is certainly not the only question in play by any means.  Another TR question reads:

 

"Do you support, affiliate with, or agree with any group or individual whose teachings or practices are contrary to or oppose those accepted by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?"

 

We have to be very careful there. My parents weren't memebers, and I certainly affiliated with them.

[thesometimesaint]

 

1999 Church Handbook of Instructions:

 

 

2010 Church Handbook of Instructions:

 

Thank you.

[Scott Lloyd]

 

1999 Church Handbook of Instructions:

 

 

2010 Church Handbook of Instructions:

Thank you for providing these quotes.

 

It is clear to me that the revised wording in the later handbook does not amount to a change in position but rather a clarification of the prior wording. That is to say, the allusion in the earlier version was to unrighteous thoughts, which should be repented of regardless of one's sexual orientation.

 

It has always been so in the Church of Jesus Christ: Members are admonished to control their thoughts because thoughts give birth to action. Hence, we have scriptural admonitions such as "As a man thinketh in his heart, so is he" and "He that looketh upon a woman to lust after her hath commit adultery with her already in his heart."

 

Thus, the concept is that one is not accountable for a thought that comes into his mind, but he is accountable for whether he entertains that thought.

 

Again, this was the teaching in the Church of Jesus Christ in 1999. It was not changed in 2010, merely clarified.

 

So, in short, I stand by my statement: "In more than five decades of Church membership, I don't recall a time when the Church considered being subject to homosexual temptation  to be a sin." Each of us is subject to temptation of some form or another; we are accountable for what we do with that temptation, whether we control it or allow it to develop into sinful action.

[thesometimesaint]

Homosexual behavior violates the commandments of God, is contrary to the purposes of human sexuality, distorts loving relationships, and deprives people of the blessings that can be found in family life and in the saving ordinances of the gospel. Those who persist in such behavior or
who influence others to do so are subject to Church discipline. Homosexual behavior can be forgiven through sincere repentance.

 If members have homosexual thoughts or feelings or engage in homosexual behavior, Church leaders should help them have a clear understanding of faith in Jesus Christ, the process of repentance, and the purpose of life on earth. Leaders also should help them accept responsibility for their thoughts and actions and apply gospel principles in their lives.

 

And

 

Homosexual behavior violates the commandments of God, is contrary to the purposes of human sexuality, distorts loving relationships, and deprives people of the blessings that can be found in family life and in the saving ordinances of the gospel. Those who persist in such behavior or
who influence others to do so are subject to Church discipline. Homosexual behavior can be forgiven through sincere repentance.

 
If members have homosexual thoughts or feelings or engage in homosexual behavior, Church leaders should help them have a clear understanding of faith in Jesus Christ, the process of repentance, and the purpose of life on earth. Leaders also should help them accept responsibility for their thoughts and actions and apply gospel principles in their lives.
 
While opposing homosexual behavior, the Church reaches out with understanding and respect to individuals who are attracted to those of the same gender.
 
If members feel same-gender attraction but do not engage in any homosexual behavior, leaders should support and encourage them in their resolve to live the law of chastity and to control unrighteous thoughts. These members may receive Church callings. If they are qualified in every other way, they may also hold temple recommends and receive temple ordinances.

 

 

There is clearly a difference between the two.

 

We aren't punished for our random thoughts or temptations. Christ alone is without sin, but even he was subjected to all temptations.

[Scott Lloyd]

 

We aren't punished for our random thoughts or temptations.

True. And the prior wording didn't say we are. The intended meaning of the prior wording is the same as what the later wording expresses more clearly.

 

There is no material difference.

 

I stand by my statement.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

True. And the prior wording didn't say we are. The intended meaning of the prior wording is the same as what the later wording expresses more clearly.

 

There is no material difference.

 

I stand by my statement.

 

I will admit ignorance. I'm only in my mid thirties, and have only been paying attention to issues like this for a decade.  To help me understand where you are coming from, do you have a lot of experience over your five decades of church experience in working with gay members in an ecclesiastical role? Or have you spoken to those that have? I have done neither in all honesty so take what follows with a grain of salt:

 

While it is true that they can be read with the same meaning, and it is possible that they retain the same intended meaning, I'd venture to guess that many church leaders on the ground interpreted the two statements very differently.  So while the two statements might just reflect a change of emphasis or clarification, on the ground and in peoples lives it seems that the two different statements could result in two very different interpretations.

[CV75]

If you are gay, according to church belief, you are screwed in this life as well as the next unless you want to magically become straight.

I don’t think you magically become straight, but you do attain a higher form of love and happiness, and channel your procreative powers within the context of the marriage covenant.

 

Neither does anyone of any other sexual proclivity magically become divine in all aspects of his or her character before enjoying the blessings of exaltation.

 

Considering the blessings of the new and everlasting covenant, rejecting someone of the opposite sex on the basis of gender is about as shallow and superficial as it gets, while receiving from the Lord someone of the opposite gender is as selfless as it gets.

[Scott Lloyd]

I will admit ignorance. I'm only in my mid thirties, and have only been paying attention to issues like this for a decade.  To help me understand where you are coming from, do you have a lot of experience over your five decades of church experience in working with gay members in an ecclesiastical role? Or have you spoken to those that have?

No. I don't think that is necessary to observe generally or understand the Church position on this or other matters.

 

I have done neither in all honesty so take what follows with a grain of salt:

 

While it is true that they can be read with the same meaning, and it is possible that they retain the same intended meaning, I'd venture to guess that many church leaders on the ground interpreted the two statements very differently.  So while the two statements might just reflect a change of emphasis or clarification, on the ground and in peoples lives it seems that the two different statements could result in two very different interpretations.

 

I will acknowledge the possibility that such a thing may have happened occasionally. It would not be the first or only time that some local leader misinterpreted the Church Handbook. Hence the need for occasional clarification or rewording.

 

Without further data, I'm not willing to concede that "many Church leaders" have misinterpreted the handbook in that way.

[foster]

True. And the prior wording didn't say we are. The intended meaning of the prior wording is the same as what the later wording expresses more clearly.

 

There is no material difference.

 

I stand by my statement.

 

What happens if one does not repent; does punishment follow? If thoughts needed to repented of, per 1999 handbook, then what would have happened to one who did not repent of thoughts?

[SeekingUnderstanding]

What happens if one does not repent; does punishment follow? If thoughts needed to repented of, per 1999 handbook, then what would have happened to one who did not repent of thoughts?

It would seem that Scott is making a valid distinction between temptation and dwelling on said temptations.  Jesus said "That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart." Jesus didn't say that being heterosexual was a sin, but having lustful thoughts about a particular woman is...

 

ETA, For a heterosexual male, it might be hard not to notice an attractive woman (not a sin), but to sit and "lust after her" would be a sin (unless said woman was that male's spouse).  

[foster]

That is certainly not the only question in play by any means.  Another TR question reads:

 

"Do you support, affiliate with, or agree with any group or individual whose teachings or practices are contrary to or oppose those accepted by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?"

 

 

Bcspace, would question 7 also apply to person who post on anti-mormon internet boards?

[Scott Lloyd]

What happens if one does not repent; does punishment follow? If thoughts needed to repented of, per 1999 handbook, then what would have happened to one who did not repent of thoughts?

This, perhaps, is a question best put to someone in a pastoral role, such as a bishop or stake president.

 

But in my view, repenting of unrighteous thoughts would entail recognizing that one has entertained such thoughts in the past and resolving not to do so in the future, all part and parcel of the effort "to control unrighteous thoughts" (to use the revised handbook wording).

[Scott Lloyd]

It would seem that Scott is making a valid distinction between temptation and dwelling on said temptations.  Jesus said "That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart." Jesus didn't say that being heterosexual was a sin, but having lustful thoughts about a particular woman is...

 

ETA, For a heterosexual male, it might be hard not to notice an attractive woman, but to sit and "lust after her" would be a sin.  Not the initial noticing or the temptation.

SeekingUnderstanding nailed it.