Ideas For Handling Of Gays Within The Church

[DBMormon]

Christ was tempted in ALL things. Did he sin?

 

Did Christ also say to even lust after a person in your heart is adultery?  I don't play games of semantics, of course Christ didn't sin but that misses the point.  Some thoughts are sinful and some are not. sinful behavior that results by carrying out sinful thoughts is generally worse then sinful behavior that follows by carrying out non-sinful thoughts. 

[california boy]

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).

Ah yes.  The promise that eventually these feelings for men will eventually go away.  Is all you have to do is find a woman you can be friends with and marry her.  Everything will work out fine.  Those very statements you are making were promises made to me when I was in my early 20's.  I wanted to believe them.  I trusted they were what God wanted me to do.  I was wrong, and so were the church leaders.

 

As you know, the church has completely backed away from this insane and untrue position.  They no longer counsel gay members to marry.  "Marriage is not therapy."  You are on your own on this one.  The church does not support your own personal opinion.

[jkwilliams]

Ah yes.  The promise that eventually these feelings for men will eventually go away.  Is all you have to do is find a woman you can be friends with and marry her.  Everything will work out fine.  Those very statements you are making were promises made to me when I was in my early 20's.  I wanted to believe them.  I trusted they were what God wanted me to do.  I was wrong, and so were the church leaders.

 

As you know, the church has completely backed away from this insane and untrue position.  They no longer counsel gay members to marry.  "Marriage is not therapy."  You are on your own on this one.  The church does not support your own personal opinion.

I have a good friend who has been married many years and until recently, she felt that she wasn't attractive because her husband wasn't interested in her sexually. Then she discovered that he had been looking at a lot of gay pornography, and when she confronted him, he admitted that he's always known he was gay, but he married her because it's part of God's plan and his priesthood leaders told him that it would work out if he just got married. Because of this terrible advice, my friend has lived in a marriage almost entirely devoid of physical affection. She describes it as having a roommate and little more. It might have been slightly better had he told her before they got married, but then I know people who did that and also realized later how foolish it was.

Thank heavens the church has moved away from this.

Edited October 31, 2013 by jkwilliams

[DBMormon]

Ah yes.  The promise that eventually these feelings for men will eventually go away.  Is all you have to do is find a woman you can be friends with and marry her.  Everything will work out fine.  Those very statements you are making were promises made to me when I was in my early 20's.  I wanted to believe them.  I trusted they were what God wanted me to do.  I was wrong, and so were the church leaders.

 

As you know, the church has completely backed away from this insane and untrue position.  They no longer counsel gay members to marry.  "Marriage is not therapy."  You are on your own on this one.  The church does not support your own personal opinion.

 

Darren sometimes you have to stop using any means to justify an end.  This post is right on

1.) The brethren no longer suggest this attraction will or can change in this life (change of position)

2.) They no longer suggest this is a choice and are adamant now about it not being a choice.  (change of position)

3.) They have also been blunt that SSA is not sin and only acting on those thoughts are. (this wasn't always the case I believe)

4.) While holding the Doctrinal ground that has been established, they have changed their approach to one that is more empathetic, compassionate, and inclusive.

5.) People who feel they are unacceptable to God and are taught to believe their very core of who they are is not good enough will always have higher rates of depression and suicide.

 

The Church is trying to find a happy medium of including them and helping them feel loved while still maintaining the essential Doctrine.  Time will tell.  but you holding old ground when the Church itself wouldn't claim it is problematic

Edited October 31, 2013 by DBMormon

[thesometimesaint]

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

 

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

 

Also agreed.

 

The so called reparative therapy is a scam. It is the equivalent of saying I can change your sexual orientation. If it were up to me every single one of these quackes would be behind bars. I did say it was incredibly hard. I don't recommend anyone try to do it, and am much more interested in helping that person accept who and what they are.

[california boy]

I detest stupid leaders; I apologize for their actions and I have not explanation other than some leaders operate on rote rather than thinking. I understand a recommendation to be careful around others with a similar attraction, but to never hang with them? That is just ridiculous; you know and I know.  The intent is to avoid temptation; can you go to a movie with another person and not jump their jeans upon parting?  Okay, then it is acceptable; however, if it is a situation that you know you will fall to temptation, then avoid it. That is the counsel for all adults; not just for our gay members.

 

The Church teaches you to follow the Spirit. You know the difference between right and wrong and you do not need to be commanded in all things. Our gay members need to use their heart and follow the Spirit rather than ask what I can and cannot do. Some leaders feel compelled to answer every question; others, more wise and studied, will counsel to pray about it and follow the Spirit.

 

I listened to Benji (cannot remember his last name, the dancer fellow) story on Mormon Stories. Here is a wonderful man that tried to deal with his challenges just like most people do in the Church. He was obviously overly hard on himself; almost masochistic in his approach to the gospel. At the end of his presentation it was evident that he went from being a knowledgeable, spiritual being to one that is blown about by every wind of doctrine. He did not know if Jesus was the Christ, who or what was God; it was a sad story to me.

 

The Honor Code of BYU and the behavior in real life are two different things...thank God.  A private university has the right to demand of its student body anything it choose and students get to vote with their feet; they wither commit to follow or go elsewhere; some lack integrity and consciously choose to break as many rules as possible. In real life we deal with things one step at a time. The Church is open to gay members; some wards are more welcoming than others. Each member is struggling to hold to the iron rod; at times with ease and at other times with real anguish.

 

A ward, a bishop, a stake president are not the Church and they do not speak for the Church at large. Some are good and some are less than good; when in a ward with a poor bishop or SP, we either learn to deal with it or we move.  I have done as a young married couple. At other times we just made do with what we had and overlooked what was not enjoyable. 

 

I acknowledge that the Church is struggling on how to best serve our gay members. The Church will not back down from what its believes is the gospel, but it will learn to serve each member better.

Thanks so much for your post. It is very thoughtful.  I only wish it was true.  The stake president and me were good personal friends.  We used to spend a lot of time together.  It broke his heart to tell me the things he did.  Both him and my bishop could not have been more compassionate and restrained in dealing with me.  My experience in leaving the church was not unpleasant at all.  To this day I feel nothing but respect and love for the church.  

 

Unfortunately at this time, the church just doesn't allow the kind of relationships that you are hoping it would.  I have moved on and am with someone I truly love for the first time in my life.  At this point, I could never leave him for the current structure the church operates under.  If you could find me real proof that this is the churches position, I would love to see it.  

[Buzzard]

The idea that all gays cannot change, EVER, is not correct. The fact that a lot of self-proclaimed gay fathers exist shows that at one or more points, they were attracted enough to a woman to make a baby. 

There is a whole spectrum of physical attraction, including true bisexuals. Should they be allowed a husband AND a wife because they are hard wired to be attracted to both genders? Obviously, some people with SSA are not going to change, no matter what. Others, who are on the homosexual edge of the spectrum but also are attracted to a woman should not be denied marriage because they have feelings for their own gender as well.

Finally, I am of the humble opinion that a lot (not all) gays were not born that way, but were seduced by an older person of the same gender when they were young, now associate physical and emotional intimacy with same-gender relationships, but could be helped by therapy.  That infuriates gays who hold that their relationships are just as valid, just as moral, just as good as traditional marriage, but IMHO, if someone can be helped and wants to be helped, it really is helping him or her to try to get them on the gospel track in all facets of their lives, including sexuality. 

I realize that I am guilty of both rambling and making statements that some will disagree with vociferously. 

[canard78]

The idea that all gays cannot change, EVER, is not correct. The fact that a lot of self-proclaimed gay fathers exist shows that at one or more points, they were attracted enough to a woman to make a baby. 

 

Imagination is an amazing thing. I've a friend who is married and gay. Because of his situation in life (not Mormon) he never felt able to live a gay lifestyle. He has two sons. He tells me that sex is possible with eyes closed and lots of imagination.

[CV75]

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. 

I had three questions:

 

1 & 2. 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?

 

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

 

I’m not sure which question your response answers to, but I don’t think temptation is sin; only acting on the temptation. Sexual orientation (I prefer to call it sexual awareness)  is not a temptation in and of itself.

 

But with regards to gay marriage, can you explain what you see as the temptation, and how one succumbs to it?

[ERMD]

Please provide one scriptural reference or quote from a modern-day prophet that homosexual activity and/or same sex marriage are pleasing and acceptable to God.

[Scott Lloyd]

A doctrine that is so important that it is mentioned in the scriptures over and over again.  Oh wait... actually it's not.

 

p.s.  I thought that the purpose of the LDS church was to bring souls to Christ.

According to Handbook 2, this is the role of the Church:

 

 

The Role of the Church

The Church provides the organization and means for teaching the gospel of Jesus Christ to all of God’s children. It provides the priesthood authority to administer the ordinances of salvation and exaltation to all who are worthy and willing to accept them.

 

 

Eternal sealing of marriage between a man and a woman is among the ordinances of salvation and exaltation that the Church administers "to all who are worthy and willing to accept them."

[Scott Lloyd]

 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. 

Temptation to commit adultery is no more sin than is same-sex attraction. It is acting on the temptation that constitutes the sin, not the temptation itself.

 

Christ Himself was tempted. In this, He did not sin.

 

It is not a sin to be tempted.

[DBMormon]

Temptation to commit adultery is no more sin than is same-sex attraction. It is acting on the temptation that constitutes the sin, not the temptation itself.

 

Christ Himself was tempted. In this, He did not sin.

 

It is not a sin to be tempted.

You seem to ignore Christ condemning even the thinking part of the adulterous behavior is by the spirit of the Law = adultery.

 

"But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart."  the lustful thought is a temptation

[Alan]

 

 

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.  

 

"What your (sic) really suggesting" is what I said. Exactly what I said. I wasn't suggesting anything, I was saying it.

Your comparison with the member with WoW issues is not valid here. This is because they are usually repentant and are trying to change.

In my experience practicing homosexuals are not.

[thesometimesaint]

Did Christ also say to even lust after a person in your heart is adultery?  I don't play games of semantics, of course Christ didn't sin but that misses the point.  Some thoughts are sinful and some are not. sinful behavior that results by carrying out sinful thoughts is generally worse then sinful behavior that follows by carrying out non-sinful thoughts. 

 

lust isn't just the random impure thought that all of us have at one time or another. Lust is giving serious contemplation to violating the command by God not to commit adultery, or anything like unto it.

[Stone holm]

I am speaking only of those who are practicing.  How can we be more inclusive of practicing gays?

 

I don't see that happening -- ever.  How would we say be more inclusive of adulterers.  Standard course of procedure:  go through disciplinary council, repent, be rebaptized, seek restoration of blessings, etc.  While I am opposed to the Church's previous political action trying to block SSM, as far as members are concerned sexual behavior of this type is contrary to the structure of the hereafter and the goal which the Church has as its mission which is for everyone to be exalted in the Celestial Kingdom.  With regards to persons afflicted with SSA, but who manage to curb their attraction to the point of no homosexual behavior, then they are as far as the doctrine goes, going to be "fixed" or "cured" of their SSA in the hereafter.  It seems to me that we do a disservice to our members who have SSA by holding out any other hope in the hereafter, and I see no change in the view on the horizon.  This is not like the African Descent issue where there was no real doctrinal structural reason for the ban.

[wenglund]

http://www.millennialstar.org/the-law-of-chastity-is-not-changing/

 

This article speaks of the prevailing idea that our Doctrine on Chastity will not change to allow same sex marriage to be in the Church as non-sin.

 

I agree with that being the likelyhood.  I also "again" do not have a horse in the race.  By that I mean that I see the LDS church as God's restored Church and agree to abide it's doctrine until new insight comes.  If someday the Lord chooses to allow practicing gays to be completely included more power to it and I would applaud it, and if he doesn't then you won't have a bitter argument out of me.

 

That said I wondered if anyone had ideas about how to allow more inclusion without changing the Doctrine.

 

some of mine

- allow them to have small callings (people with WOW issues serve, people seen by their Bishops as less then worthy still can participate in ordinances with their children.

 

-  allow them the sacrament?  this is a hard one for me to see as an option though I recognize we are all sinners an all of us have some thing that is negative that we choose to hold onto (Sabbath activity, overeating WOW, tithing, not serving or witnessing of Christ in all situations we could, ect..) and yet most of us are partaking of the sacrament

 

-  recognize their marriages - Once the law changes, and like it or not it eventually will to allow gay marriage in all 50 states (imagine Utah being the only holdout, they will cause a constitutional amendment)  This would allow them to be married, but since it is doctrinally sin, temple sealings would be forbidden.

 

 

My goal here is not to push for change of Doctrine but rather to discuss how we keep the Doctrine and yet find a place for them in the midst of their "sin" just as there is a place for you and me in the midst of our sins.

 

Since I am not a leader of the Church, nor do I aspire to such calling, nor am I disposed to nor in a position to steady arks, and am thus disinclined to frequently ponder how the Church can change for this cultural trend or that, nevertheless I can consider how I may personal interact with homosexuals within the Church.

 

I have determined to treat them no differently as a person than I would anyone else. In fact, instead of viewing them in discriminate ways like defining them by their sexual orientation, or giving them special attention and treatment, I will simply consider them as children of God and fellow members.

 

As for homosexual behaviors, I have determined to treat them no differently than I would any perverse sexual behavior. If a member is a practicing homosexual (i.e. engages in male-male or female-female sex), I will treat them no differently than I would a member who commits adultery or is addicted to pornography or who engages in sex outside marriage.

 

Beyond this, I don't know what else would benefit all parties in bringing us each to Christ.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[CV75]

You seem to ignore Christ condemning even the thinking part of the adulterous behavior is by the spirit of the Law = adultery.

 

"But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart."  the lustful thought is a temptation

The person who has “already committed adultery …in his heart" has already succumbed to the temptation to lust. If he continues, this creates vulnerability to the next temptation to act on that lust and so on as he commits sin after sin (like King David). Temptation is nothing more than exploitation of our fallen nature and mortal inexperience, or of the additional debasement we have brought ourselves into through sin. Our conscience prevents or corrects this dynamic.

 

You mentioned before that “acting on a sinful thought should be a greater sin then acting on a non-sinful thought.”  I agree. A person can think and act upon his sexual awareness according to his conscience or his appetite. One's sexual awareness is not a sin, and it makes no difference as to what kind of sexuality we label it.

 

So, with regards to gay marriage, can you explain what you see as the temptation? Please respond to post #259--thank you,

[Scott Lloyd]

You seem to ignore Christ condemning even the thinking part of the adulterous behavior is by the spirit of the Law = adultery.

 

"But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart."  the lustful thought is a temptation

The lustful thought amounts to acting on the temptation once it has been encountered. One cannot help if a temptation enters his mind, but one can choose whether or not to dwell on the temptation.

 

This, in my opinion, is the basis behind the Church's stance that SSA itself is not considered sinful but acting on it is. It's no different than with immoral temptations that anyone experiences, heterosexual or not.

 

Edited to add:

 

I see that others have already responded as I have above.

Edited October 31, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

You seem to ignore Christ condemning even the thinking part of the adulterous behavior is by the spirit of the Law = adultery.

 

"But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart."  the lustful thought is a temptation

Huh? Temptation does not equal the same thing as lusting after someone. I think you are stretching here.

 

 

Anyway should we not define what homosexual behavior is? I define it as even showing affection towards some one of the same sex that would normal be reserved for some one of the opposite sex. IE holding hands, kissing, ect.

[Stone holm]

Huh? Temptation does not equal the same thing as lusting after someone. I think you are stretching here.

 

 

Anyway should we not define what homosexual behavior is? I define it as even showing affection towards some one of the same sex that would normal be reserved for some one of the opposite sex. IE holding hands, kissing, ect.

 

Getting physical, not brain activity.  While having a clean mind is our ideal, we recognize a limited ability to control the brain -- going to watch a pole dancer probably is beyond just brain activity.  Although there is a gay culture that does not involve sex which people find offensive, not sure it would be something that a person would be called to account for -- but I doubt that a man who acts out the gay culture, even if clean from a physical point of view, is going to get called to any calling involving youth.

[rockpond]

 This is not like the African Descent issue where there was no real doctrinal structural reason for the ban.

 

Hmmm... for a long time we built a lot of "doctrinal structure" to support the "African Descent issue".  We are now appropriately doing our best to purge it.

 

So, if you similarly set aside all of the doctrinal structure that we've been building over the last half-century or so, there really isn't much in the way of scriptural support (Bible, Book of Mormon, D&C, PofGP) for denying marriage to gay couples.  Unless, of course, if you look at statements describing marriage between a man and a woman (or women) and assume that because those ARE mentioned that gay marriage must be forbidden.  In which case, stand your ground.

[Stone holm]

Hmmm... for a long time we built a lot of "doctrinal structure" to support the "African Descent issue".  We are now appropriately doing our best to purge it.

 

So, if you similarly set aside all of the doctrinal structure that we've been building over the last half-century or so, there really isn't much in the way of scriptural support (Bible, Book of Mormon, D&C, PofGP) for denying marriage to gay couples.  Unless, of course, if you look at statements describing marriage between a man and a woman (or women) and assume that because those ARE mentioned that gay marriage must be forbidden.  In which case, stand your ground.

 

No we did not.  There never was any doctrinal structure with regards to the "African Descent issue" -- it was always understood that those of African Descent would eventually get access to all of the ordinances, etc. The difference in the two camps was whether they would get it before the millenium.  In addition,  African Descent has nothing to do with the ability to reproduce -- the fact that Exaltation involves the continuation of seed for the creation of spirit children is built into our doctrine.  It is why we have both a Heavenly Father and a Heavenly Mother.  This is not just a matter of overcoming cultural obstacles it goes to Mormon beliefs as to how the cosmos is structured with regards to gods.

[Buzzard]

Hmmm... for a long time we built a lot of "doctrinal structure" to support the "African Descent issue".  We are now appropriately doing our best to purge it.

 

So, if you similarly set aside all of the doctrinal structure that we've been building over the last half-century or so, there really isn't much in the way of scriptural support (Bible, Book of Mormon, D&C, PofGP) for denying marriage to gay couples.  Unless, of course, if you look at statements describing marriage between a man and a woman (or women) and assume that because those ARE mentioned that gay marriage must be forbidden.  In which case, stand your ground.

The writing of Paul, where homosexuality is expressly condemned, are slightly more than fifty years old. 

[Stone holm]

The writing of Paul, where homosexuality is expressly condemned, are slightly more than fifty years old. 

 

If it were merely the writings of Paul, then I would say there was a chance of it being changed because Paul said a lot of silly things -- but for Mormons this is much, much more than that.