Ideas For Handling Of Gays Within The Church

[DBMormon]

My belief is that most acting gay people choose that lifestyle- its a choice they make, they werent born that way. There are factors in life that can sway people to make choices on their sexuality especially in our morally corrupt society we live in. Any way you dice it up, acting on ones homosexual attractions is a sin just as acting on adulterous attractions are also a sin.

As for orientation I firmly believe that the majority of gay people have those attractions because of events that happen in mortality. Maybe its a chance encounter at scout camp, perhaps its a dare at an all catholic school but in the end, our epidemic of homosexuality in society is latgely the cause of Satan and his works.

 

Your backtracking.  Choosing Sin and having life experiences affect you in a way that you become gay are two different ideas, though I commend your willingness to re-evaluate your opinion in light of the teachings of the 1st presidency and the 12

[DBMormon]

I'm with Rob on this.

I don't buy this "I'm born that way" nonsense either.

I personally know two so-called homosexuals who were, apparently, "born that way", and who are now married to women, have a number of children, and totally reject their previous statements. They now say they weren't born that way afterall.

 

I am personally quite happy with the way the church currently deals with this issue. We do not need to make any accomodation for sinful behaviour.

We already have.  take an unworthy father.  The handbook now allows where it did not previously for unworthy fathers to participate in ordinances for their family.   We at one time had a member in our ward who has a calling while living with her non-member friend with benefits (the right call in my mind and I wasn't the leader giving out callings).  People with Word of Wisdom issues (sin) participate in the church all the time.  People not paying tithing (robbing god = sin of omission) participate in Church all the time.  

 

What your really suggesting is that the sin of being gay and acting on bothers you so much more then other sins that you would prefer to not have it in your sight and would rather shove practicing homosexuals out of your midst or punish them severely enough that they disappear on their own.  Do we do this to someone with a WOW issue. or any other sin.  In the example above, even with adultery we as a Ward loved the couple.  The member became very active again and the non member friend joined the Church.  Again... the right call.  The handbook specifcally says what sins require a Disciplinary council and which one don't.  Homosexuality is not a required offense for disciplinary council but embezzellment is.  Why is that?  Is it because perhaps there are other ways beside punishment that can be a positive means to affecting change. hmmmmm 

[jkwilliams]

We already have.  take an unworthy father.  The handbook now allows where it did not previously for unworthy fathers to participate in ordinances for their family.   We at one time had a member in our ward who has a calling while living with her non-member friend with benefits (the right call in my mind and I wasn't the leader giving out callings).  People with Word of Wisdom issues (sin) participate in the church all the time.  People not paying tithing (robbing god = sin of omission) participate in Church all the time.

I was not aware of that change. A few years ago, when my son turned 16, our bishop approached me in a crowded room after a Young Women in Excellence program and said loudly, "So, who do you want to ordain [son] a priest? Obviously, you won't be able to do it." The room went silent and everyone stared at me, and my kids looked shocked. So, I said I'd talk to my son, and I left. He had this weird idea that publicly shaming me, preferably in front of my kids, was the best way to jump-start my testimony. He did similar things on several other occasions.

 

What your really suggesting is that the sin of being gay and acting on bothers you so much more then other sins that you would prefer to not have it in your sight and would rather shove practicing homosexuals out of your midst or punish them severely enough that they disappear on their own.  Do we do this to someone with a WOW issue. or any other sin.  In the example above, even with adultery we as a Ward loved the couple.  The member became very active again and the non member friend joined the Church.  Again... the right call.  The handbook specifcally says what sins require a Disciplinary council and which one don't.  Homosexuality is not a required offense for disciplinary council but embezzellment is.  Why is that?  Is it because perhaps there are other ways beside punishment that can be a positive means to affecting change. hmmmmm

There seems to be a hierarchy of sins that is unique to Mormonism, with sexual sin "next to murder" in seriousness. Within the category of sexual sin, homosexuality seems to provoke a particularly strong reaction in a lot of people. But even in religions that believe that all sin is equal in making humans unworthy of God's presence, such as mainstream Protestant Christianity, homosexuality is singled out as especially egregious. My guess is that it's a product of years--even centuries--of social disapproval and labels such as "pervert" and "crime against nature."

[Hamba Tuhan]

They have a name for such people: bisexuals.

A category dependent on, and therefore as new as, the social constructs of hetero- and homosexuality. For most of the world's history and in nearly all places people have just been 'sexuals'.

[Storm Rider]

I was not aware of that change. A few years ago, when my son turned 16, our bishop approached me in a crowded room after a Young Women in Excellence program and said loudly, "So, who do you want to ordain [son] a priest? Obviously, you won't be able to do it." The room went silent and everyone stared at me, and my kids looked shocked. So, I said I'd talk to my son, and I left. He had this weird idea that publicly shaming me, preferably in front of my kids, was the best way to jump-start my testimony. He did similar things on several other occasions.

 

There seems to be a hierarchy of sins that is unique to Mormonism, with sexual sin "next to murder" in seriousness. Within the category of sexual sin, homosexuality seems to provoke a particularly strong reaction in a lot of people. But even in religions that believe that all sin is equal in making humans unworthy of God's presence, such as mainstream Protestant Christianity, homosexuality is singled out as especially egregious. My guess is that it's a product of years--even centuries--of social disapproval and labels such as "pervert" and "crime against nature."

 

Did he tell someone that was his motivation or are you making an assumption?

 

Regardless, as a human he was a bit of dunderhead; he was not the first and he will not be the last.  Humanity seems have a lot of frailties and we each do a lot of stupid things all the time. I would suggest to overlook the actions of others, including this bishop, and focus on what is good in people. 

[jkwilliams]

Did he tell someone that was his motivation or are you making an assumption?

Just a guess. When someone repeatedly asks you to get your family together so he can grill you about your church activity, and does this in public and in private several times, it's not that big a stretch to assume that's what he is doing.

 

Regardless, as a human he was a bit of dunderhead; he was not the first and he will not be the last.  Humanity seems have a lot of frailties and we each do a lot of stupid things all the time. I would suggest to overlook the actions of others, including this bishop, and focus on what is good in people.

He's not a bad guy, and we get along fine most of the time (I still hear from him occasionally). He's a politician, and he has the kind of personality that believes you can do anything if you try hard enough. I am enough of a dunderhead myself that I don't hold grudges over something like that. As my sister says, our father taught us to expect human frailty, especially when it comes to people who are supposed to be called of God, so we've never been disappointed by leaders screwing up.

I just thought it was interesting that, apparently, church policy has changed such that I would have been able to participate in the ordination, so the incident probably wouldn't have happened.

Edited October 31, 2013 by jkwilliams

[CV75]

We already have.  take an unworthy father.  The handbook now allows where it did not previously for unworthy fathers to participate in ordinances for their family.   We at one time had a member in our ward who has a calling while living with her non-member friend with benefits (the right call in my mind and I wasn't the leader giving out callings).  People with Word of Wisdom issues (sin) participate in the church all the time.  People not paying tithing (robbing god = sin of omission) participate in Church all the time.  

Given that you do not have a horse in the race, what kind of participation would you deny a gay couple under the current doctrine, policies and practices of the Church?

[rodheadlee]

You do realize that smoking is against the Word of Wisdom, which these days has the force of a commandment. Where's the commandment against kissing? The law of chastity is about having sexual relations with someone who isn't your spouse. Calling a brief kiss "sexual relations" is a bit of a stretch, don't you think?

Do we need a commandment for everything? What about treat your neighbor as you would have them treat you?

[DBMormon]

Given that you do not have a horse in the race, what kind of participation would you deny a gay couple under the current doctrine, policies and practices of the Church?

 

It is doctrinally sin, so they couldn't go to the temple.  They couldn't hold major callings that required temple worthiness.  I am also hesitant to give the sacrament.  I am sure there are others but this at least shares my basic thoughts.

[jkwilliams]

Do we need a commandment for everything? What about treat your neighbor as you would have them treat you?

That is the first great commandment, is it not?

[Sky]

A category dependent on, and therefore as new as, the social constructs of hetero- and homosexuality. For most of the world's history and in nearly all places people have just been 'sexuals'.

 

Are you suggesting that the modern concept of sexual orientation, in the way that it's most commonly understood, has little value or is meaningless?  

 

http://www.apa.org/helpcenter/sexual-orientation.aspx

[CV75]

It is doctrinally sin, so they couldn't go to the temple.  They couldn't hold major callings that required temple worthiness.  I am also hesitant to give the sacrament.  I am sure there are others but this at least shares my basic thoughts.

That leaves a wide range of options for particiption, which is great.

 

At what point does the Church not recognizing a gay marriage interfere with a couple's participation in the ways you suggest? Another way of asking it is, why/how does the couple's participation as you suggested require the Church to recognize the gay marriage?

 

At what point would you consider a gay marriage a form of apostasy meriting excommunication?

Edited October 31, 2013 by CV75

[CV75]

Are you suggesting that the modern concept of sexual orientation, in the way that it's most commonly understood, has little value or is meaningless?  

 

http://www.apa.org/helpcenter/sexual-orientation.aspx

(Sorry to butt in, Humba)

 

My take on this is that the covenants are blind to sexual orientation--anyone of any persuasion can enter into them. So yes, the modern concept of sexual orientation, in the way that it's most commonly understood, is meaningless in relation to how the covenants are structured.

[jkwilliams]

A category dependent on, and therefore as new as, the social constructs of hetero- and homosexuality. For most of the world's history and in nearly all places people have just been 'sexuals'.

The word has meaning in our culture, hence my use of it. The word "iPod" is also new and socially constructed, but presumably you don't feel the need to dismiss that word.

I've explained earlier that human sexuality appears to be, IMO, a continuum defying sharp lines and categories. That said, some words, such as bisexual, are useful as shorthand in describing human sexual orientation. Someone who has same-sex attraction but is also attracted to the opposite gender, at least enough to be sexually aroused, can be considered a bisexual. I can't see why that would be controversial.

[Darren10]

Sexual orientation is not a choice.  Actions are.  Simple enough?  

 

I can't simply choose to be attracted to women in the same way or intensity that I am to men.  It's just not how my brain chemistry is wired or whatever other factors may be involved.  In that sense, I'm gay.  Just in the same sense as those of you who are attracted to the opposite gender are straight.  Saying that it's a choice is not true and can cause much hurt.         

 

For ideas of how to "handle" gays within the Church, as well as getting the most updated information on how the Church is starting to approach this subject, I suggest we all refer to and study the mormonsandgays.org website.          

 

Likewise, you'll have to say that I cannot be attracted to other men. I find that completely false. I made choices growing up and those choices bare fruitition today. So did you. I've no doubt that you have really clear and erhaps really strong physical attractions to men and you're 100% correct that despite what your attraction is how you act upon it is your choice. I still say that somewheredown the line, despite how difficult it may be, you can make choices t ochange your attraction. Now, on individual cases, perhaps that will not happen completely in this life but I've no doubt you can change, at lest limitedly an, yes, completely. I've changed my views on many things in my life and I'll say that I've known many heterosexual mles who have had to alter how they look upon women. Fror some its been difficult but it is quite possible. That's been a struggle and it's on going but changes have been made and it's all for the better.  

 

Questions:

Are there not men who need to look upon women less, let's say, lustfully?

 

Is this possible or are men simply wired to lust and therefore to suggest they change by choice can create hurt?

 

Can pedophiles change? I've heard the exact same arguments: that they are wired to be attracted to young boys and girls. I thin kthere's truth to that but cn they change? (This is one of the most difficult changes anyone can make).

[thesometimesaint]

A man kissing a woman, even in curch, also sets the standards of how things should be to everyone else. How things should be here I include: as they are now, have been, and the eventual goal of a man and a woman.

 

You have to kiss a lot of frogs before you find your prince(ss).

[thesometimesaint]

That is the first great commandment, is it not?

 

That's the second great commandment.

[jkwilliams]

Likewise, you'll have to say that I cannot be attracted to other men. I find that completely false. I made choices growing up and those choices bare fruitition today. So did you. I've no doubt that you have really clear and erhaps really strong physical attractions to men and you're 100% correct that despite what your attraction is how you act upon it is your choice. I still say that somewheredown the line, despite how difficult it may be, you can make choices t ochange your attraction. Now, on individual cases, perhaps that will not happen completely in this life but I've no doubt you can change, at lest limitedly an, yes, completely. I've changed my views on many things in my life and I'll say that I've known many heterosexual mles who have had to alter how they look upon women. Fror some its been difficult but it is quite possible. That's been a struggle and it's on going but changes have been made and it's all for the better.  

 

Questions:

Are there not men who need to look upon women less, let's say, lustfully?

 

Is this possible or are men simply wired to lust and therefore to suggest they change by choice can create hurt?

 

Can pedophiles change? I've heard the exact same arguments: that they are wired to be attracted to young boys and girls. I thin kthere's truth to that but cn they change? (This is one of the most difficult changes anyone can make).

A few questions:

1. Do you have any evidence that men and women can change their sexual orientation? You say you can change yours, so how would you go about becoming attracted to men?

2. Do you consider sexual attraction/orientation to be the same thing as lust? You seem to be saying so.

3. Do you consider same-sex attraction to be morally equivalent to pedophilia? Do you acknowledge any differences? Do you see any potential problems in trying to discuss these issues with gay members when you've compared them to pedophiles?

[Darren10]

Where did Quinn say that homosexuality was accepted until the 1940s? I read his book but must have missed that part.

 

From my #185 citation from Wiki:

 

Main article: Homosexuality and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

Quinn, who himself is openly gay, has publicly argued that homosexual relationships, between both men and women, were quietly accepted by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and its leadership up until the 1940s.^[1]

 

Under "Same-sex dynamics among 19th-Century Mormons" You'll read the aove quotation. It's footnotes credits "^ "Interview of D. Michael Quinn". PBS. April 30, 2007. Retrieved October 11, 2011."

[DBMormon]

That leaves a wide range of options for particiption, which is great.

 

At what point does the Church not recognizing a gay marriage interfere with a couple's participation in the ways you suggest? Another way of asking it is, why/how does the couple's participation as you suggested require the Church to recognize the gay marriage?

 

At what point would you consider a gay marriage a form of apostasy meriting excommunication?

 

 

That's a good question, one which should be left to Bishops and Stake presidents who can act in their office being led by the Holy Ghost on what is the best way to bring someone to Christ and to help them change to be like him.  My thought is this.  Temptation to commit adultery is sin. The SSA that an individual feels is not.  So in reality acting on a sinful thought should be a greater sin then acting on a non-sinful thought.  But somehow it is the opposite on this issue. 

[california boy]

I am curious....do those of you who believe there is no choice in whom one is attracted to, do you believe this just in the sense of gender or do you believe there are types of women/men who you can't be attracted to and others who are almost irresistible in their attraction (none of which forces you to see yourself as a romantic or lifelong partner based solely on sexual attraction.

 

At what point does instinctual attraction starts to be outweighed by other physical factors you value.  For example, while you may think someone is your ultimate lover from across the room, as you come close you  may notice some other factors...a certain perfume, crooked teeth, thinning, oily hair or a bad dye job and then when the exquisite mouth opens a giggle is released which is the equivalent to having nails being drawn across a chalkboard effect.

 

Perhaps someone can explain to me as well at what point do these irresistible, immutable attractions that leave one no choice change to irresistible repulsions as I have heard described by some divorced couples.

 

I am not quite sure what you are asking.  But I will try and answer your question.  I remember the first time I realized i was not like the other guys.  I was only 12 and on a ski trip with our scout troop.  We were staying at someone's cabin.  One of the boys had brought a Playboy.  He pulls it out and all the other boys are so focused on each picture.  I was curious but clearly not having the same reaction as they were.  The women were beautiful, but naked women was just not that interesting.  I ended up going out to the living room with the adults, pretending that I was doing so because of some moral high ground.   But I knew that wasn't the reason at all.  I was just bored.  That reaction was in such stark contrast with my feelings for Greg, who I hung out with after school.  He was so sexy, is all I could think about is what it would be like to have sex with him or even seeing him naked or even with his shirt off.  We never had any physical relationship, but it was not because I didn't have a burning desire to. 

 

Of course there are guys that I am much more physically attracted to.  If I see a guy with a great chest and nice abs, then I am totally effected by it.  I just want to see him naked.   I love a guy with great hair and a beautiful smile. Most guys don't fit that description and don't have the same reaction on me, but there is still an attraction.  It is just not as strong.  

 

Women are more neutral.  Some women are definitely beautiful, but I never wonder what they would look like with their blouses off.  My body just doesn't react sexually to them.  Being in a room with a beautiful woman would not be a sexual experience for me no matter how she was dressed or how beautiful she was.. 

 

My boyfriend doesn't have a great chest or great hair.  He is more on the skinny side. He does have great abs.  But we are so connected in both a romantic, physical and emotional way.  It is like we are the same person.  We are in complete sync with each other. When we are apart for only a short period of time, (I am talking only hours, never days)  I miss him.  I fell more in love with him than his physical self.  Our love grows every day.  If our relationship was just physical, he would definitely not be the person I would choose to spend my entire life with.  But I can't imagine my life without him near me.  Does that answer your question?

[thesometimesaint]

A few questions:

1. Do you have any evidence that men and women can change their sexual orientation? You say you can change yours, so how would you go about becoming attracted to men?

2. Do you consider sexual attraction/orientation to be the same thing as lust? You seem to be saying so.

3. Do you consider same-sex attraction to be morally equivalent to pedophilia? Do you acknowledge any differences? Do you see any potential problems in trying to discuss these issues with gay members when you've compared them to pedophiles?

 

1. It is posible for a person to change their own sexual orientation. Incredibly hard to do, and no one can make them change. IE; Can I counsel you out of being a heterosexual?

 

2. They are not the same. But there does need to be at least a certain amount of sexual attraction or the human race would quickly die out.

 

3. There is no moral equivalency. One is between consenting adults and the other is an exercise of power(Rape).

[jkwilliams]

From my #185 citation from Wiki:

 

 

 

Under "Same-sex dynamics among 19th-Century Mormons" You'll read the aove quotation. It's footnotes credits "^ "Interview of D. Michael Quinn". PBS. April 30, 2007. Retrieved October 11, 2011."

Oh, well, Wikipedia says it, so it must be true.

From my #185 citation from Wiki:

 

 

 

Under "Same-sex dynamics among 19th-Century Mormons" You'll read the aove quotation. It's footnotes credits "^ "Interview of D. Michael Quinn". PBS. April 30, 2007. Retrieved October 11, 2011."

It might behoove you to read the transcript of that interview. Spoiler alert: it doesn't say anything like that.

[thesometimesaint]

That's a good question, one which should be left to Bishops and Stake presidents who can act in their office being led by the Holy Ghost on what is the best way to bring someone to Christ and to help them change to be like him.  My thought is this.  Temptation to commit adultery is sin. The SSA that an individual feels is not.  So in reality acting on a sinful thought should be a greater sin then acting on a non-sinful thought.  But somehow it is the opposite on this issue. 

 

Christ was tempted in ALL things. Did he sin?

[jkwilliams]

1. It is posible for a person to change their own sexual orientation. Incredibly hard to do, and no one can make them change. IE; Can I counsel you out of being a heterosexual?

I have never seen any evidence that sexual orientation can change. Even the reparative-therapy folks acknowledge that "success" for them is suppressing same-sex desire, not changing it. And these are the people who desperately want to change their orientation. Sorry, but if it were possible, we'd have some examples of people whose orientation has changed. I

 

2. They are not the same. But there does need to be at least a certain amount of sexual attraction or the human race would quickly die out.

Agreed. I'm interested in Darren's response, as he is the one who equated sexual attraction with lust.

 

3. There is no moral equivalency. One is between consenting adults and the other is an exercise of power(Rape).

Also agreed.

Edited October 31, 2013 by jkwilliams