Ideas For Handling Of Gays Within The Church

[Darren10]

jkwilliams;

 

Likewise, using today's standards as the rubric, people can easily say that homosexual behavior was more accepted  until the 91940s. This includes in the LDS Church and leadership.

[jkwilliams]

Today's society is vastly more sexualized than decades ago, period.

 

I would agree to some extent, and thank you for conceding that Quinn did not say what you have been asserting. That said, had Evan Stephens been living with a series of beautiful young women and sleeping in the same bed with them, would have that have been considered innocent back then? I rather think not.

[canard78]

The church remains affixed in their position. and what position is that? That same position that homosexual behavior of any kind is wrong and sinful. Sure, they have come out and made some statements on how we should treat people with same sex attraction but the church holds steadfast in maintaining that any act upon which one indulges those same sex attraction to any degree it is a sin.

 

But sadly you've chosen to ignore the statements the church has made about gay people. They've said SSA is not a choice. You've said it is. 

[Darren10]

Hmmm. Yesterday you told me that the story of JFSmith's homosexuality was a lie invented by gay anti-Mormon Michael Quinn and repeated by this lying apostate.

 

What changed your mind?

 

I was highly skeptical of Quinn's story as you posted then Wiki changed my mind.

 

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/62097-ideas-for-handling-of-gays-within-the-church/?p=1209313427

[Darren10]

I would agree to some extent, and thank you for conceding that Quinn did not say what you have been asserting. That said, had Evan Stephens been living with a series of beautiful young women and sleeping in the same bed with them, would have that have been considered innocent back then? I rather think not.

 

I cannot verify he said it. I can still very well imagine he did but, you're correct i n that I will no longer make him the source of that as such would not be proper or moral.

 

And yet he *wasn't* sleeping with a bunch of beautiful, or ugly but with "sweet spirits", young women, was he. That too is far more accepted today than decades ago. Also, yours is a perfect example of the change in social perception due to society's sexualized coversion. Decades ago people did not think of men sleeping with men was anything sexual but men with women, yes. Today, "sleeping with someone" automatically means something sexual and that's because people sleep together for sexual reasons far more today than decades ago.

[Darren10]

But sadly you've chosen to ignore the statements the church has made about gay people. They've said SSA is not a choice. You've said it is. 

 

Me too, I say it's a choice. A powerfully bad choice to resist perhaps but ti is a choice.

[jkwilliams]

I cannot verify he said it. I can still very well imagine he did but, you're correct i n that I will no longer make him the source of that as such would not be proper or moral.

 

And yet he *wasn't* sleeping with a bunch of beautiful, or ugly but with "sweet spirits", young women, was he. That too is far more accepted today than decades ago.

But not by the church, which again was Quinn's point.

Also, yours is a perfect example of the change in social perception due to society's sexualized coversion. Decades ago people did not think of men sleeping with men was anything sexual but men with women, yes. Today, "sleeping with someone" automatically means something sexual and that's because people sleep together for sexual reasons far more today than decades ago.

Again, you're just repeating Quinn's point.

Good to know you agree with me and Quinn.

[Bob Crockett]

Me too, I say it's a choice. A powerfully bad choice to resist perhaps but ti is a choice.

I agree.   Over the years in different capacities I have come to know several men and women with same-sex attraction who have temple recommends and have raised families within the church.   A couple of bishops.  They have made a choice. 

[Stone holm]

I don't know I think the church is working pretty hard in Hawaii right now to keep it from legalizing SSM.

The Church or local level leaders who haven't figured out the crusade is over, it's my understanding that the Church is no longer officially endorsing the anti SSM drives.

[canard78]

Me too, I say it's a choice. A powerfully bad choice to resist perhaps but ti is a choice.

I'm glad I'm not the only one who listens to the broad array of things said by our church leaders and chooses to set some things to one side. I'm sure we do it with different things, but we do it non-the-less. Our leaders say SSA is not a choice but you say it is. On this one, I'm aligned with the statement by the leaders. If it's any reassurance to you a friend of mine believes that they are not saying what they really believe on mormonsandgays.org, that they are, in effect, lying for The Lord. I disagree with him. But that's the beauty of divergent views.

[canard78]

I agree. Over the years in different capacities I have come to know several men and women with same-sex attraction who have temple recommends and have raised families within the church. A couple of bishops. They have made a choice.

You miss my point and the message of mormonsandgays - the attraction is not a choice. The actions based on that attraction is a choice. Your friends did not choose to be gay. They chose to not act on those feelings. Just like I did not choose to be straight but I chose to not act on those feelings until married.

[DBMormon]

Me too, I say it's a choice. A powerfully bad choice to resist perhaps but ti is a choice.

 

So on this point you disagree with the Brethren?

[DBMormon]

I agree.   Over the years in different capacities I have come to know several men and women with same-sex attraction who have temple recommends and have raised families within the church.   A couple of bishops.  They have made a choice. 

 

Are you saying the attraction is a choice?  if so I want to be clear.  If so, then on this point you are in disagreement with the church?

[Stone holm]

You miss my point and the message of mormonsandgays - the attraction is not a choice. The actions based on that attraction is a choice. Your friends did not choose to be gay. They chose to not act on those feelings. Just like I did not choose to be straight but I chose to not act on those feelings until married.

 

I think this pretty much sums up the Church's position.  In my personal opinion, what we see evolving here is that the Church is encouraging less judgementalism with respect to SSA and trying to get people to focus on the people's behavior.  This has been necessitated by people coming out of the closet about having SSA, people who in the past stayed in the closet and stayed the course of being married and having a family.  Personally, I cannot understand why anybody who wasn't a psychological masochist would admit to SSA to the Church if they had the will power to stay in the closet and stay the course.  Why trumpet SSA if you are planning not to act on it?  It's just kind of stupid since it can't help but put that person on the Church radar or watch list.

[Tacenda]

The Church or local level leaders who haven't figured out the crusade is over, it's my understanding that the Church is no longer officially endorsing the anti SSM drives.

 

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/56890226-78/church-hawaii-lds-legislation.html.csp

 

There are several other websites that have shown this information.  I guess the church is back in the game.  October conference talked about freedom of religion.         

[rockpond]

He also said, "If you love me, keep my commandments". And spoke against sexual immorality many times. Gays love to point out that he never singled out homosexual relationships, but Paul cleared out any Biblical misunderstandings, and modern prophets have been crystal clear as well.

What  you do not get is that the most loving and compassionate thing we can do for those struggling with this issue is to be clear on the expectations, and to let them know that if they partake of this sin, they are inviting eternal misery and regret in the world to come. You want them to feel affirmed in their behavior for a handful of years now, or know unending joy in their father's kingdom later?

 

Sorry, I just don't see this "crystal clarity" coming from either Paul or modern prophets (when taken as a whole, not just singled out statements).

[rockpond]

Joseph Fielding Smith was treated compassionately after being excommunicated for homosexual behavior. That was always been the LDS Church's standard, consistent with the Savior's teachings and example. While you express earthly reasons for God to OK gay marriage, I utterly fail to see why God would do so. He's never done it before, the sexual itself is explicitly condemned in ancient and modern scripture, as well same-sex marriage being explicitly condemned by modern scripture, it does not promote eternal creation and is denied exaltation and God wants nothing less than exaltation. And if God does something and the spirit whispers something contrary to your heart than frankly you're listening to the wrong spirit and that's not good. Same-sex marriage will do nothing to foster eternal marriages, more compassion within others, charity, etc. in fact I fear it would do the exact opposite.

 

As I said, I see no condemnation of homosexual relationships in ancient scripture.

 

What, specifically, do you mean by "modern scripture" (people have different definitions)?  D&C is silent on the matter.  So is the Book of Mormon.  And there are no published revelations on the subject of gay marriage.

 

I strongly disagree that same-sex marriage will do nothing to foster more compassion and charity.

[Stone holm]

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/56890226-78/church-hawaii-lds-legislation.html.csp

 

There are several other websites that have shown this information.  I guess the church is back in the game.  October conference talked about freedom of religion.         

 

Not necessarily, previously Stakes were receiving letters from SLC encouraging outright resistance.  That is not the tone of the letter sent out by the Stake President in Hawaii.  When the battles were fought in Vermont and New Hampshire the Stakes were receiving admonitions direct from SLC to specifically resist and in Vermont the Priesthood Quorum meetings turned into organizational meetings like political action committees. It was a very intense organized political push with the Church designating a spokesperson to testify before the legislative panel, etc.  While the obvious implications is to vote against the measure, this is not a call to arms like previously. Although I would in this instance probably defer to Scott Lloyd as to what he thinks the level of official Church involvement is.

[rockpond]

I think your logic above is what I hear most from people that support this issue or try to find a logic that allows for it to exist within a Godly manner.  Love is all that is needed and if there is love then the relationship is acceptable. The problem with that line of thinking is that it necessarily ignores the rest of the Bible about obedience, commandments, purity, and those verses that clearly say that a man should not lie with a man. 

 

If I had a gay child and they decided that they could not live a celibate life (to stay within the church) I would still encourage them to be obedient and pure.  I'd encourage them to abstain from sexual relations until marriage.  And I'd encourage them to join with a church or faith community that would support them in those efforts.

[canard78]

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/56890226-78/church-hawaii-lds-legislation.html.csp

 

There are several other websites that have shown this information.  I guess the church is back in the game.  October conference talked about freedom of religion.         

 

I LOVE the fact that this letter accepts that members in good standing might prayerfully consider this vote and still be in favour.

 

Members are encouraged to study this legislation prayerfully and then as private citizens contact your elected representatives in the Hawaii Legislature to express your views about the legislation... Whether or not you favor the proposed change, we hope that you will urge your elected representatives to include in any such legislation a strong exemption for people and organizations of faith.

 

 

While the tone of this letter puts the church clearly in favour of it not being passed, it respects the memberships ability to reach their own conclusions and makes no condemnation of one perspective or the other.

 

This letter did not come from head office though. It was a stake leaders' letter. A spokeswoman expressed support for it, but it's not 'from the top.'

[rockpond]

I have said many times on this board that the public media does not acknowledge that there is a huge sub rosa community of men (and women) with same-sex attraction but who function in normal heterosexual marriages.  In the Church, in particular, I have known of at least one bishop in that situation, as well as many others.   Some times they can't remain faithful in their marriages, but a very large percentage (at least as I see it) do.  They find the message of the Gospel to be compelling.

 

Generally speaking, someone with "same sex attraction" who functions well in a heterosexual marriage would be considered bisexual.  Though, I do think there are gay men and lesbian women who, through amazing determination, make opposite gender marriage work.  But the success rate appears to be too low for that to be a recommended path for all -- which seems to be the decision the Brethren made sometime in the 90's.

[rockpond]

That's a great example as to how the LDS Church *IS* a hospitable place for everyone, including homosexuals.

 

What I meant when I said that it wasn't hospitable was that the church isn't hospitable for gay members who don't desire a celibate life and who hope to marry (someone of the gender to which they are attracted).  Just to clarify.

 

We could agree on that point, right?

[WmLaw]

No, you cite D. Michael Quinn as the source for your #165 citation. D. Michael Quinn got fired from BYU, can't get rehired, is openly gay, and was ex communicated from the LDS church. How is he a reliable source regarding Joseph Fielding Smith?  

 

And, nope I never heard of it and I highly doubt It but feel free to propagate it.

Which of those things disqualifies Quinn as a reliable source?

[Stone holm]

I LOVE the fact that this letter accepts that members in good standing might prayerfully consider this vote and still be in favour.

 

 

While the tone of this letter puts the church clearly in favour of it not being passed, it respects the memberships ability to reach their own conclusions and makes no condemnation of one perspective or the other.

 

This letter did not come from head office though. It was a stake leaders' letter. A spokeswoman expressed support for it, but it's not 'from the top.'

 

I agree this is at best a very mild push compared to the past, and what the spokeswoman said is hardly like making a push from the pulpit at General Conference.  The Church is not going to publicly call a Stake President on the carpet for that letter regardless of the official strategeic position of the Church is currently.  This is the Salt Lake Tribune we are talking about here, not the Deseret News.

[california boy]

If I wanted to set out to intentionally destroy a civilization and lead people away from God (loose their exaltation), which are Satan's goals, I'd be fully involved in the gay agenda. The logical end of the gay agenda (which I distinguish from there being people who are gay) is to use the force of the state to force homosexual acceptance upon society. There is rampant attacks from the gay agenda supporters to get their way. If you want a CFR, I'll be glad to provide more than one.  

Well of course I would love to hear more because you have yet to provide a shred of evidence that the gay agenda is Satan's agenda.  As already has been pointed out to you, homosexuality has NEVER been the cause of the fall of any civilization even though it has been a part of every civilization.  Yes the church views homosexuality as a sin.  But to place some artificial omnipotent force behind this particular sin is unjustifiable.  The problem with your whole position is you somehow want to use the civil rights of gay Americans as the scape goat of the countries problems and sins.  It is not.  It may be a sin, but there are plenty of other sins rampant in this country.  If you want to make the claim that Satan uses all sin to destroy the exaltation of the children of men, then fine.  

 

What is unjustifyable is to place homosexual sin as some kind of special all encompassing sin that will destroy all of mankind.  You are going to have to prove that the civil rights of gay Americans is somehow Satan's plan to cause the downfall of society and stop yours or anyone elses chances of exaltation.  If you are expecting that sin has to first leave the world before anyone will receive exaltation then you are falsely mistaken.  The sin of homosexuality has always been on this earth and will be here long after you and I are gone.  You have yet to provide any proof of that.  So still waiting for your CFR on the homosexual agenda being Satan's plan.