Rob Osborn Posted October 30, 2013 Posted October 30, 2013 I believe the church as a leadership is already doing everything it can within God's laws to include them with fellowship. Homosexual acts are as serious a sin as is stealing, cheating, lieing, adultery, etc. Sexually immoral acts are not little sins- the type you ask forgiveness in your prayers and then partake of the sacrament on Sunday renewing your covenants. Just as we do not give callings to known thieves, liars, adulterers, etc, neither should callings within the Lords church be extended to people who knowingly violate Gods laws of sexual purity. Sure, everyone is a sinner but there are types and degrees of sins which the Lord has deemed "serious" of which homosexual acts are just that- serious sins. Just as I have never known a member who knowingly cheats on their spouse retain a calling in the church so to it is with homosexuals who practice are also not alliwed to retain callings.Some of us keep trying to sugarcoat homosexuality as if it is nothing. The only one teaching that doctrine though is Satan. So it begs the question- who are we listening to, the Lord or Satan? 2
jkwilliams Posted October 30, 2013 Posted October 30, 2013 There's a young man that I was Priests Quorum advisor to who chose to leave the church despite his very strong and very large LDS family. He told me: "The Church wants me to give up every chance I have at a happy and fulfilling life on the hope that I'll be given all of that in the next life. Sorry, I can't do that." That's not a "test" that we as heterosexuals are given. So I think it's appropriate to approach their circumstances with an extra measure of compassion. Absolutely agree. I was trying to make the point that, as far as the church goes, the choice really is that stark. It's not just that sex is out of bounds, but the church discourages close friendships among homosexuals, such that hugs, kisses, and any physical display of affection are out of bounds. That's not much a life, if you ask me. Single heterosexuals can hug, kiss, and cuddle with no consequence, but that will get you kicked out of BYU in a heartbeat if you're gay. 1
rockpond Posted October 30, 2013 Posted October 30, 2013 I believe the church as a leadership is already doing everything it can within God's laws to include them with fellowship. Homosexual acts are as serious a sin as is stealing, cheating, lieing, adultery, etc. Sexually immoral acts are not little sins- the type you ask forgiveness in your prayers and then partake of the sacrament on Sunday renewing your covenants. Just as we do not give callings to known thieves, liars, adulterers, etc, neither should callings within the Lords church be extended to people who knowingly violate Gods laws of sexual purity. Sure, everyone is a sinner but there are types and degrees of sins which the Lord has deemed "serious" of which homosexual acts are just that- serious sins. Just as I have never known a member who knowingly cheats on their spouse retain a calling in the church so to it is with homosexuals who practice are also not alliwed to retain callings.Some of us keep trying to sugarcoat homosexuality as if it is nothing. The only one teaching that doctrine though is Satan. So it begs the question- who are we listening to, the Lord or Satan? You used the phrase "homosexuals who practice". That is fairly nondescript terminology. I think that the OP is asking if there is some kind of space in there, within the existing doctrine, where we could more fully welcome homosexuals into the church. Or maybe I've missed the point. It's always possible.
DBMormon Posted October 30, 2013 Author Posted October 30, 2013 There's a young man that I was Priests Quorum advisor to who chose to leave the church despite his very strong and very large LDS family. He told me: "The Church wants me to give up every chance I have at a happy and fulfilling life on the hope that I'll be given all of that in the next life. Sorry, I can't do that." That's not a "test" that we as heterosexuals are given. So I think it's appropriate to approach their circumstances with an extra measure of compassion.amen 1
thesometimesaint Posted October 30, 2013 Posted October 30, 2013 There's a young man that I was Priests Quorum advisor to who chose to leave the church despite his very strong and very large LDS family. He told me: "The Church wants me to give up every chance I have at a happy and fulfilling life on the hope that I'll be given all of that in the next life. Sorry, I can't do that." That's not a "test" that we as heterosexuals are given. So I think it's appropriate to approach their circumstances with an extra measure of compassion. It is the exact same test. Be sexually pure. If someone refuses to meet the demands that God has instituted. Then for their own sake I wish them all the best. 2
jkwilliams Posted October 30, 2013 Posted October 30, 2013 It is the exact same test. Be sexually pure. No it isn't. A heterosexual person can engage in kissing, hugging, hand-holding with no consequence. Gay members can't. 1
thesometimesaint Posted October 30, 2013 Posted October 30, 2013 You used the phrase "homosexuals who practice". That is fairly nondescript terminology. I think that the OP is asking if there is some kind of space in there, within the existing doctrine, where we could more fully welcome homosexuals into the church. Or maybe I've missed the point. It's always possible. We don't exclude people whom have temptations. We ALL have temptations, even Christ was tempted in ALL things. What we/they do with those temptations is another question.
thesometimesaint Posted October 30, 2013 Posted October 30, 2013 No it isn't. A heterosexual person can engage in kissing, hugging, hand-holding with no consequence. Gay members can't. Homosexuals can kiss, hug, hold hands all they want within the correct setting. The Church doesn't designate those as sexual acts. A heterosexual couple whom plays huggy body, kissy face in Sacrament Meeting will be asked to stop or "Get A ROOM". 1
Scott Lloyd Posted October 30, 2013 Posted October 30, 2013 Seriously, Scott. The thread is about how we might find a way to welcome homosexual members into the church without changing doctrine. If you don't have something to say with respect to that topic, maybe you should skip participation on this one.I'm saying that unless the person commits to avoid all homosexual behavior, it can't be done. jkwilliams has said essentially the same thing. Are you going to invite him to leave the thread as well?
Rob Osborn Posted October 30, 2013 Posted October 30, 2013 I stand by the church in that they accept homosexual people with feelings as long as not acted upon. I along with a long line of other male members of the church are attracted to other women besides my spouse. I cant really seem to help the fact that I feel attracted to other women. What can I say, I find women attractive. But, I have a strict mindset that says it is alk off limits. No one holds a gun to anyones head, people can and should control their desires even if those desires, if acted upon, leads into sin. Just as I can find happiness despite some of my temptations, so too can all walks of people find happiness within the bounds of Gods laws. I think there are rare cases where gender identity is genuinely confused from birth but in almost every case, gender confusion is brought on by decisions we or others make. It is up to us in most cases to resist temptation and overcone sin. That all said,I honestly believe the church has done everything it can do to include the gay community and invite them to Christ. The church, as a leadership, is not going to do much more. As members all we can do is keep inviting them to church, be their friends, offer support, etc. What we should not do though is give them a false hope that the church will change or that homosexuality is an acceptable behavior. 2
jkwilliams Posted October 30, 2013 Posted October 30, 2013 Homosexuals can kiss, hug, hold hands all they want within the correct setting. The Church doesn't designate those as sexual acts. A heterosexual couple whom plays huggy body, kissy face in Sacrament Meeting will be asked to stop or "Get A ROOM". If I give my wife a kiss in the chapel after sacrament meeting when she goes to Primary (which I do every Sunday), no one thinks twice about it. You cannot tell me the same would be true if two men kissed in the same setting.
canard78 Posted October 30, 2013 Posted October 30, 2013 Homosexuals can kiss, hug, hold hands all they want within the correct setting. The Church doesn't designate those as sexual acts. A heterosexual couple whom plays huggy body, kissy face in Sacrament Meeting will be asked to stop or "Get A ROOM". I'd agree that this seems reasonable but unlikely that this will be accepted in many areas.
Scott Lloyd Posted October 30, 2013 Posted October 30, 2013 If I give my wife a kiss in the chapel after sacrament meeting when she goes to Primary (which I do every Sunday), no one thinks twice about it. You cannot tell me the same would be true if two men kissed in the same setting.I think jkwilliams is right about this, the sometimesaint. We need to be realistic.
canard78 Posted October 30, 2013 Posted October 30, 2013 (edited) If I give my wife a kiss in the chapel after sacrament meeting when she goes to Primary (which I do every Sunday), no one thinks twice about it. You cannot tell me the same would be true if two men kissed in the same setting. It would most certainly not be considered acceptable by the majority of members. Perhaps that's the room that going to be made - affection and dating acceptable in the short term. Edited October 30, 2013 by canard78
Rob Osborn Posted October 30, 2013 Posted October 30, 2013 You used the phrase "homosexuals who practice". That is fairly nondescript terminology. I think that the OP is asking if there is some kind of space in there, within the existing doctrine, where we could more fully welcome homosexuals into the church. Or maybe I've missed the point. It's always possible. its about practicing homosexuals- those who act out their homosexuality with other people.
jkwilliams Posted October 30, 2013 Posted October 30, 2013 I'd agree that this seems reasonable but unlikely that this will be accepted in many areas. It's not acceptable at BYU. Here's the relevant part of the Honor Code: "Homosexual behavior is inappropriate and violates the Honor Code. Homosexual behavior includes not only sexual relations between members of the same sex, but all forms of physical intimacy that give expression to homosexual feelings."
Scott Lloyd Posted October 30, 2013 Posted October 30, 2013 It's not acceptable at BYU. Here's the relevant part of the Honor Code: "Homosexual behavior is inappropriate and violates the Honor Code. Homosexual behavior includes not only sexual relations between members of the same sex, but all forms of physical intimacy that give expression to homosexual feelings."I think that pretty much mirrors the institutional stance of the Church.
jkwilliams Posted October 30, 2013 Posted October 30, 2013 I think that pretty much mirrors the institutional stance of the Church. That's what I've always understood. Even if it weren't, that's certainly the cultural stance of most church members I know.
Scott Lloyd Posted October 30, 2013 Posted October 30, 2013 That's what I've always understood. Even if it weren't, that's certainly the cultural stance of most church members I know.And of most of those whom I know as well.
jkwilliams Posted October 30, 2013 Posted October 30, 2013 And of most of those whom I know as well. If it were just that the church wants gay members not to engage in sex, I'd be more accepting and understanding of the church's position. But it's such a double-standard and one that forces gay members to live without loving physical contact at all with anyone they might be sexually attracted to. People tell me the church isn't asking anything of gay members that they wouldn't ask of unmarried heterosexual members. But that's not true.
rockpond Posted October 30, 2013 Posted October 30, 2013 I'm saying that unless the person commits to avoid all homosexual behavior, it can't be done. jkwilliams has said essentially the same thing. Are you going to invite him to leave the thread as well? Sorry, I did not mean to be abrasive with my "skip participation" comment. I just didn't want you and I to get into another debate that took the thread away from the OP's question. Something I realize I was doing as well because, as you know, this is a subject that is important to me. So, you're saying it can't be done unless the person commits to avoiding all homosexual behavior. Fair enough. But where would you draw the line if you were a bishop. Here's a hypothetical... Say you, as a bishop, have a brother in your ward who is gay and worthily holds a temple recommend. He has accepted a call to serve as a counselor in the EQ presidency and has been serving faithfully in that position for some time. You now learn that he spends most of his social time hanging out with several gay (but platonic) friends. Do you request his release? If not, a few months pass and in an interview with him he lets you know that he went on a dinner date with a guy but there was no physical intimacy. Do you request his release at this point? If not, a couple of months pass and a trusted ward member tells you that they saw him leave the movies hand in hand with another guy. You ask him about this and he says that he has been dating this man and kissed him but nothing beyond that. And he assures you that he will not go any further than this current activity. Do you request a release now? Would you, at any point in this hypothetical, have requested a disciplinary council if the Elder in question said that he did not plan to stop dating but that he would not ever let his relationship go past the point of hand holding and kissing as he believes in chastity before marriage and marriage only between a man and a woman? Just curious where you would draw the line with respect to "full fellowship in the church".
CV75 Posted October 30, 2013 Posted October 30, 2013 http://www.millennialstar.org/the-law-of-chastity-is-not-changing/ - 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. Any person can already have a calling or assignment, partake of the sacrament, etc. according to the bishop's discernment, regardless of sexual orientation. Any matter of personal worthiness is his call and he will reference the handbook which I doubt holds up sexual orientation as a qualifier. The marriage item -- where the Church recognizes the definition of marriage as between a man and a woman, the Church cannot recognize alternative definitions. Regardless of how the gay couple behaves in its union, in my opinion they would be ineligible for callings and sacrament because they have openly rejected this most fundamental doctrinal point about the foundation for the Zion society the Church is building, which could even be construed as a form of apostasy. I would say that the gay member is to be included as any other member, and on the same basis. This grants him as much privilege and responsibility as his brothers and sisters to abide by Church doctrine and policy, and also to smooth out the occassional social wrinkles that might arise. 1
rockpond Posted October 30, 2013 Posted October 30, 2013 its about practicing homosexuals- those who act out their homosexuality with other people. I guess I was looking for something more specific. See my response to Scott here (in post #46) and feel free to reply to it if you'd like.
jkwilliams Posted October 30, 2013 Posted October 30, 2013 Just curious where you would draw the line with respect to "full fellowship in the church". Fascinating question. It's clear that the church consider sex between two people of the same sex to be a perversion of God's plan. Fair enough. But is kissing also a perversion? Holding hands? Hugging? Gazing into each other's eyes soulfully? To me, that's what makes the church such an inhospitable place for gay members. Some people act as if being gay is just about following your hormones, but to most gay people I know, it is who they are, period. The church seems to recognize this by discouraging all kinds of physical contact in ways they don't do with heterosexual members. Like I said, if I had a gay child or friend who was in the church, and they asked my advice, I'd encourage them to leave and not look back. If the church were true, it might be a different story. But even then, I can't imagine a God who is that cruel to His children.
thesometimesaint Posted October 30, 2013 Posted October 30, 2013 I'd agree that this seems reasonable but unlikely that this will be accepted in many areas. People, that includes the Saints, put unneccessary exclusions on, normal human actions. I wouldn't look twice at a couple of men(or women) giving a quick peck on the cheek or lips in passing each other in the halls of the Church. I've seen close friends do it. It just doesn't bother me. I, myself, don't even hold hands with my wife when in Church meetings or halls. But it is fine with me if someone else does.
Recommended Posts