Ideas For Handling Of Gays Within The Church

[pcarthew]

While visiting him in Utah he learned that such physical intimacy, and the development of relationships between gay members on this level was looked on with approval in the Church headquarters as a kind of "David and Johnathan" relationship.

Discount it if you want, I completely understand if you do.

I can promise you having 2 personal and very close friends who are of the seventy, and another who holds a very senior role as a church employee who meets every week with the first presidency for 30 mins every Tuesday morning, your post is wrong. The senior leadership of the church sees any LGBT relationship in any gratifying form is an abomination unto The Lord. There is NO capitulation amongst ANY of the brethren about this. There is no tolerance for this at all, absolute garbage!

Edited November 1, 2013 by pcarthew

[Bob Crockett]

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?

 

I'll look through my posts to see if I've ever said that, but I doubt it.

 

The Church's official position on same-sex attraction says nothing about it being a choice or not a choice.  It is silent.  (See "Same-Sex Attraction" on lds.org.) The Church's position emphasizes the wrongfulness of same-sex activity.  The Church's official position doesn't care whether it is a choice or not a choice.  CFR on your point that the Church says it is not a choice.

 

The positions of the Brethren on "choice" are not as conflicting as whether homosexuality is the product of nature or nuture.   Some (most, I believe) of the Brethren have taken the position that it is a product of the environment, or so they have suggested, and others have said things slightly to the contrary.  

 

I note that Masters & Johnson have indicated it can be a product of both, and that homosexual conduct exists in a wide spectrum, from a one-time experience as an adolescent on the one end to a lifetime of nothing but homosexual conduct.  It is impossible to force a definition into "choice" or "not a choice" and "nature" or "nurture."  I commend for your education the Church's official stance on the subject as well as some technical writings on the subject. 

Edited November 1, 2013 by Bob Crockett

[DBMormon]

I'll look through my posts to see if I've ever said that, but I doubt it.

I am asking Bob, Is SSA a choice for most SSA individuals.  If you say no, I take you at your word, no need to go through all your posts.  Some are saving the outward behavior is a choice which I think we agree with 100%.  The struggle is with those who still say SSA is a choice which the Church itself no longer holds as the official view.  It is confusing when people here are saying it is a choice but are not specifying whether they are speaking about the attraction or the homosexual sexual relations.

[california boy]

Look. No gays are not Satanic. SSM is not God's plan, but you are right gay activists fighting for their Constitutional Rights and to live with dignity is not Satanic. But spreading divisiveness in the land which is tearing and shredding religious faith apart is. So for those unwilling to accept any responsibility for this religious war that has been ignited, the actions of the gays are going to be attributed to Satan. Satan, I doubt cares whether gays live in committed relationships, but he does relish discord. Look at the arguments he is motivating people to hurl at each other over this issue, can their be any doubt that Satan is stirring this pot?

Tell me this.  Is it more righteous for a gay couple to be unmarried living in sin than to be married living in sin?  How does gay marriage make make homosexuality more sinful?  According to church doctrine, whether a gay person is married or not, there is not a single difference in the sin of homosexuality.  So if you are going to defend that gay marriage is somehow more satanic, you are going to have to explain why it is.  

 

As far as I can tell, the only argument you can make is that gay marriage makes "christians" less Christ like because of the way they are treating homosexuals.  And that, my friend, is more a problem with Christians than it is being about gay marriage.  The only argument you could make on that idea is that God is using gay marriage to test christians on how to treat sinners. 

[Stone holm]

I have never argued that gays living in a legally married state are committing a more serious sin than those who are not.  In fact, I have always argued that it is wrong of us to try and legislate our beliefs.  You need to read the passage you quoted more carefully.  The quote was an explanation of what hypothetically Satan is getting out of this, not a partisan support of either side.

[california boy]

I dont have to spell it out. Deviant sexual behaviour is not the Lords way.

Isn't all immoral sexual behavior not the Lord's way?  In fact, isn't all sin not the Lord's way?  Yet you didn't state that all sin is Satan's plan.  You only said gay marriage is Satan's plan.  If you would have said all sin is Satan's plan, then I would not disagree with you. 

 

To make the claim that gay marriage is Satan's plan, you have to first prove that gays living in marriage is more sinful than gays living without marriage.  Then you have to prove that somehow the civil rights of gay Americans is satanic.  So either prove your statement or withdraw it.  (BTW, answering a CFR by opinion does not qualify.  That is the point of a CFR)

[Bob Crockett]

I am asking Bob, Is SSA a choice for most SSA individuals.  If you say no, I take you at your word, no need to go through all your posts.  Some are saving the outward behavior is a choice which I think we agree with 100%.  The struggle is with those who still say SSA is a choice which the Church itself no longer holds as the official view.  It is confusing when people here are saying it is a choice but are not specifying whether they are speaking about the attraction or the homosexual sexual relations.

I think you'll have to read my most recent post.  You probably responded to it while I was in the middle of editing it.

 

According to Masters and Johnson, homosexual attraction and activity is on a continuum.   For some it is an exploratory choice (perhaps fueled by alcohol); for others the desire is likely so compelling they don't believe they have a choice in the matter.  But, as far as the Church is concerned, "choice" is not part of the question nor answer.  

 

I reiterate my CFR to you to show me where Church has said that it is not a choice.  Perhaps you can scan the Church's official published position and obtain information about that from there; I can't.

[DBMormon]

I think you'll have to read my most recent post.  You probably responded to it while I was in the middle of editing it.

 

According to Masters and Johnson, homosexual attraction and activity is on a continuum.   For some it is an exploratory choice (perhaps fueled by alcohol); for others the desire is likely so compelling they don't believe they have a choice in the matter.  But, as far as the Church is concerned, "choice" is not part of the question nor answer.  

 

I reiterate my CFR to you to show me where Church has said that it is not a choice.  Perhaps you can scan the Church's official published position and obtain information about that from there; I can't.

http://mormonsandgays.org/

 

The attraction itself is not a sin, but acting on it is. Even though individuals do not choose to have such attractions, they do choose how to respond to them. With love and understanding, the Church reaches out to all God’s children, including our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters.

 

Bob this is the Church's official position and it stands to apply to the large majority of those with SSA

 

 

In fact Bob here is the whole BOX

 

Where the Church stands:

The experience of same-sex attraction is a complex reality for many people. The attraction itself is not a sin, but acting on it is. Even though individuals do not choose to have such attractions, they do choose how to respond to them. With love and understanding, the Church reaches out to all God’s children, including our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters.

 

 

Edited November 1, 2013 by DBMormon

[california boy]

I have never argued that gays living in a legally married state are committing a more serious sin than those who are not.  In fact, I have always argued that it is wrong of us to try and legislate our beliefs.  You need to read the passage you quoted more carefully.  The quote was an explanation of what hypothetically Satan is getting out of this, not a partisan support of either side.

I am not accusing you of stating that, I am asking you the question.  If the answer is no, then how does gay marriage become more immoral?  If gay marriage is not more immoral, than why would Satan be behing any of this?

 

The bottom line is when people start hurling statements like the civil rights of gay Americans is satanic, I am going to call them out on it.  

[Bob Crockett]

http://mormonsandgays.org/

 

The attraction itself is not a sin, but acting on it is. Even though individuals do not choose to have such attractions, they do choose how to respond to them. With love and understanding, the Church reaches out to all God’s children, including our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters.

Interesting.  It is both a choice (acting on it) and not a choice (attraction), although I continue to maintain that "attraction" has nothing to do with the question or answer.

[Tacenda]

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.

 

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865588398/Hawaiis-largest-faiths-oppose-same-sex-marriage-bill.html?pg=all

 

Here is the one from DN.  And to put it this way, everything in the church is from the top down.

 

ETA:  Just saw this..

 

  http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/mormon-church-and-nom-accused-of-violating-hawaii-election-laws/marriage/2013/10/28/77530#.UnPQ1IPnaM9

Edited November 1, 2013 by Tacenda

[california boy]

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?

The problem with this position is that the only source you can list in the New Testament is Paul.  That apostle who also said women should not wear gold jewelery, shouldn't pray in church, shouldn't speak in church, marriage is for the weak etc.  There are a LOT of what Paul said that we don't consider doctrine.  

 

If you want to rely on modern day revelation than fine, I have no argument against that (except for the fact that no prophet has claimed to have received a revelation on gay marriage.)  But to rely on Paul as your single source is problematic

[pcarthew]

Plain and simple, the scriptures are our pattern for the plan of salvation. We begin with Adam and Eve as the pattern for marriage, procreation and family. Coupled with the commandments, covenants and the atonement of Christ. This is the pattern. There is no variation to this pattern. God has revealed no variation to this pattern. By this pattern we are here on earth to multiply in families as husband and wife and to have joy and rejoicing in our posterity. This is not possible with out the union of male and female. Children by design need the example of both a righteous father and mother. SSA acted upon is not condoned by God ANYWHERE in the scriptures, In fact we are taught society is destroyed by infidelity including homosexuality. The only argument for gay marriage is born of the modern doctrine of man. No argument, no matter how clever or passionate can change this sacred pattern of salvation as laid down by God before we even came to this earth. God is in control and although loves all his children, it does not mean He accepts every thought and idea of everyone. Christ taught over and over again, we are here on earth to overcome weakness and sin through His atonement. He taught if he love me keep my commandments. He taught that we must do all in our power to do,the will of God, that will I have set out above. The plan of salvation will exist independent of any ideal or school of thought of man, no matter how passionate we may feel about a topic or issue. I can find no contradiction in the scriptures to what I have just said. Men and women with gay inclinations are always welcome in the church, to hold the Priesthood and serve in callings, if they live the law of chastity as applies to any heterosexual too.

[Bob Crockett]

The problem with this position is that the only source you can list in the New Testament is Paul.  That apostle who also said women should not wear gold jewelery, shouldn't pray in church, shouldn't speak in church, marriage is for the weak etc.  There are a LOT of what Paul said that we don't consider doctrine.  

 

If you want to rely on modern day revelation than fine, I have no argument against that (except for the fact that no prophet has claimed to have received a revelation on gay marriage.)  But to rely on Paul as your single source is problematic

This is the "throw the baby out with the bathwater" attack on the Bible.  (As to women not speaking in Church, Joseph Smith corrected that passage.)

 

One asks whether what Paul said on homosexual conduct was important.  One way, although not one used much in the Church, is to examine the patristic writings interpreting Paul.  To a person they condemn homosexual conduct has abhorrent and an abomination, pointing to Paul as one source.  They condemn abortion, although abortion isn't mentioned in the New Testament.  They condemn infanticide, and so forth.   Homosexuality ranks with abortion and infanticide in the patristic writings as unhappy events.   

 

I'm just reporting what is being said and what I read.  I say, if the Church lets homosexual practitioners in the Church then I will be there with gladness on that day.

Edited November 1, 2013 by Bob Crockett

[rockpond]

Plain and simple, the scriptures are our pattern for the plan of salvation. We begin with Adam and Eve as the pattern for marriage, procreation and family. Coupled with the commandments, covenants and the atonement of Christ. This is the pattern. There is no variation to this pattern. God has revealed no variation to this pattern. By this pattern we are here on earth to multiply in families as husband and wife and to have joy and rejoicing in our posterity. This is not possible with out the union of male and female. Children by design need the example of both a righteous father and mother. SSA acted upon is not condoned by God ANYWHERE in the scriptures, In fact we are taught society is destroyed by infidelity including homosexuality. The only argument for gay marriage is born of the modern doctrine of man. No argument, no matter how clever or passionate can change this sacred pattern of salvation as laid down by God before we even came to this earth. God is in control and although loves all his children, it does not mean He accepts every thought and idea of everyone. Christ taught over and over again, we are here on earth to overcome weakness and sin through His atonement. He taught if he love me keep my commandments. He taught that we must do all in our power to do,the will of God, that will I have set out above. The plan of salvation will exist independent of any ideal or school of thought of man, no matter how passionate we may feel about a topic or issue. I can find no contradiction in the scriptures to what I have just said. Men and women with gay inclinations are always welcome in the church, to hold the Priesthood and serve in callings, if they live the law of chastity as applies to any heterosexual too.

 

It's not the lack of scriptural/revelatory information on what God wants for his heterosexual children.  It's the lack of scriptural/revelatory information on what God wants for his homosexual children.  The idea that he wants them to be celibate and will bless them for it in the next life is a doctrinal construct that really only appeared in the last couple decades.

[Darren10]

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.

 

If you can take your snarky post and place it somewhere else i'd appreciate it. Then, if you can explain some things for me, i'd appreciate it.

 

1) When has the LDS church ever said tht same sex attraction is not a choice?

2) If they are not then please exaplin how I or anyone else who say that at least for many if not most of them are, are teaching something contrary to what is taught by LDS Church leaders.

3) How would anyone who believes in evolution be non compliat with the LDS church teachings regarding it?

 

Be a pal and help me out here.

[Darren10]

http://mormonsandgays.org/

 

The attraction itself is not a sin, but acting on it is. Even though individuals do not choose to have such attractions, they do choose how to respond to them. With love and understanding, the Church reaches out to all God’s children, including our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters.

 

Bob this is the Church's official position and it stands to apply to the large majority of those with SSA

 

 

In fact Bob here is the whole BOX

 

The attraction is not "inherently" sinful. That leaves open the existence of the some attractions which are sinful.

 

The Church distinguishes between same-sex attraction and behavior. While maintaining that feelings and inclinations toward the same sex are not inherently sinful, engaging in homosexual behavior is in conflict with the “doctrinal principle, based on sacred scripture … that marriage between a man and a woman is essential to the Creator's plan for the eternal destiny of His children.”

 

Bold mine.

 

http://www.lds.org/topics/same-gender-attraction

[DBMormon]

If you can take your snarky post and place it somewhere else i'd appreciate it. Then, if you can explain some things for me, i'd appreciate it.

 

1) When has the LDS church ever said tht same sex attraction is not a choice?

2) If they are not then please exaplin how I or anyone else who say that at least for many if not most of them are, are teaching something contrary to what is taught by LDS Church leaders.

3) How would anyone who believes in evolution be non compliat with the LDS church teachings regarding it?

 

Be a pal and help me out here.

 

Darren this has been answered several times.  The Church states officially on Mormonsandgays.org

 

Where the Church stands:

The experience of same-sex attraction is a complex reality for many people. The attraction itself is not a sin, but acting on it is. Even though individuals do not choose to have such attractions, they do choose how to respond to them. With love and understanding, the Church reaches out to all God’s children, including our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters

 

.

Edited November 1, 2013 by DBMormon

[thesometimesaint]

I don't have a reference for you on that but as I've discussed that very question with non-LDS Christians, they told me that the practice was condemned of God... that some of the patriarchs/prophets were punished for it... and that God sometimes overlooked it to continue His greater mission (or something along those lines).

 

Like I said, not a real reference, just my experience.  But you certainly aren't denying that most other Christian faiths condemn the practice of polygamy?

When there are even nonLDS Christians whom practiced, and/or recommended it.

http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/FQ_cult.shtml#8

[rockpond]

When there are even nonLDS Christians whom practiced, and/or recommended it.

http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/FQ_cult.shtml#8

 

Yep, that link identifies a couple instances of Christian polygamy in the Sixth and Sixteenth centuries.  It uses them to argue that polygamy should not be used to disqualify Mormons from being considered Christians.  I agree completely.