Ideas For Handling Of Gays Within The Church

[Scott Lloyd]

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.

 

I agree it's a horrible situation to be in. I shudder to think of it.

 

If I lacked the faith I have in a just and merciful God who will make all things right in ways that I'm incapable of fully comprehending right now, I would probably feel much as you do.

 

One thing that helps me come to grips with this is my conviction that SSA is a disorder that pertains to mortality only and that, like all blemishes and afflictions, it will be removed in the resurrection. Some will counter that I can't point to an official Church statement to that effect. They may be right. But it's my conviction nevertheless, and the only conclusion that make sense to me, given what I know of the doctrine pertaining to sexual sin and the justice and mercy of God.

 

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.

 

 

I think that's a fair statement.

[Scott Lloyd]

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".

I've never aspired to a calling that would put me in the position of convening a disciplinary council. I hope I never have to.

 

And I have no desire to pretend or role play about being in such a position. To me, it seems pointless, because presumably I am not entitled to the divine inspiration I would be subject to if I ever were in that position.

[jkwilliams]

I agree it's a horrible situation to be in. I shudder to think of it.

 

If I lacked the faith I have in a just and merciful God who will make all things right in ways that I'm incapable of fully comprehending right now, I would probably feel much as you do.

 

One thing that helps me come to grips with this is my conviction that SSA is a disorder that pertains to mortality only and that, like all blemishes and afflictions, it will be removed in the resurrection. Some will counter that I can't point to an official Church statement to that effect. They may be right. But it's my conviction nevertheless, and the only conclusion that make sense to me, given what I know of the doctrine pertaining to sexual sin and the justice and mercy of God.

 

I think that's a fair statement.

 

I can't imagine what it must be like to feel so completely rejected. It's no wonder there is so much depression and suicide among gay youths, LDS or not. And I don't think it's particularly helpful to refer to homosexuality as a disorder, as usually disorders have causes and treatments. Homosexuality may have various origins, but it's not something you can treat or will or pray away. It's just reality for these men and women.

[rockpond]

I've never aspired to a calling that would put me in the position of convening a disciplinary council. I hope I never have to.

 

And I have no desire to pretend or role play about being in such a position. To me, it seems pointless, because presumably I am not entitled to the divine inspiration I would be subject to if I ever were in that position.

 

Bummer, I spent a lot of time typing up that hypothetical.  

 

But what you are saying is kind of my point... it's very easy to toss around a term like "homosexual behavior" until you actually have to consider the implications in the life of an actual person, under your stewardship, sitting in front of you.

[DBMormon]

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.

I disagree completely.  It is easy to sit back and say that but if you were asked to be celibate and have no sexual relations with anyone and to choose to do so as a heterosexual that it would be easy enough and worth it.  That is insane.  Sure it is thrust upon many, but not by choice (I am not speaking of those who actually choose this such as Catholic Priests or Nuns, and even these examples have serious flaws)  I sure couldn't do it.  "Hey Bill we command you to go your whole life not being intimate with the woman you love."  Sorry, I'd opt out.  Call me what you will but that is insane and it is easy to be a heterosexual and say it is about being sexually pure and so if I had to do that I would... it is a whole another story when a lifetime of celibacy is a choice and is that request is actually lived out and put into practice.

[Scott Lloyd]

I can't imagine what it must be like to feel so completely rejected. It's no wonder there is so much depression and suicide among gay youths, LDS or not.

I disagree that such a one need feel rejected, as though sexual orientation were the sum total of one's entire existence, worlds without end.

 

 

And I don't think it's particularly helpful to refer to homosexuality as a disorder, as usually disorders have causes and treatments.

 

Certainly not all do. There are many, many congenital disorders, for example, that will never be cured in one's lifetime.

 

 

Homosexuality may have various origins, but it's not something you can treat or will or pray away. It's just reality for these men and women.

 

Saying that something can have no wholesome expression does not amount to denying its reality.

 

And some people with SSA (certain bi-sexual individuals) can cope with it and conceivably build a happy heterosexual marriage. The expectation would be not much different for them than it would be for a heterosexual individual: to suppress any sexual attraction one might feel for anyone other than his/her spouse.

Edited October 30, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[DBMormon]

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.

 

Your comparison is not fair, you have your wife.  Regardless of having attraction to other women you still have your wife.  You are asking a gay person to have no-one.  It is a completely different scenario.

 

Ok lets ask it.  If a prophet asked you to live out the rest of your life not having any more sexual relations with your wife would you?  could you?  I am 35 years old and the answer is no and so Thank God I am heterosexual and not asked to make this great sacrifice, because I couldn't.  It is easy for me to sit back and say, heck yeah I could do it, as I will do anything God asks of me.... but in all honesty.  Nope, not a chance in Spirit Prison I could do that.

Edited October 30, 2013 by DBMormon

[DBMormon]

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.

my point exactly.  Don't get me wrong either.  I support the Doctrine and I see some of why it is, but don't kid yourself into not grasping that as a segment in the Church they are being asked to do something way harder then any other heterosexual segment of the Church is being asked and in many ways impossible for many.

[jkwilliams]

I disagree that such a one need feel rejected, as though sexual orientation were the sum total of one's entire existence.

But that's my point: the church, by creating special rules just for them, makes it seem as though sexual orientation is, if not the sum total, the big part of one's existence that demands different treatment than other people.

 

Certainly not all do. There are many, many congenital disorders, for example, that will never be cured in one's lifetime.

Again, this is not a helpful way to label gay members. I have a congenital disorder, and I will live with its consequences throughout my life. I accept that physical problem, which fortunately has been corrected so as not to be debilitating, but that's different from saying that someone who is gay is somehow defective or afflicted with a disorder.

 

Saying that something can have no wholesome expression does not amount to denying its reality.

That's what I don't understand. Why is holding hands or giving some a hug not a wholesome expression? Unmarried heterosexuals consider those to be wholesome expressions of heterosexual love and attraction. What is the difference?

 

And some people with SSA (certain bi-sexual individuals) can cope with it and conceivably build a happy heterosexual marriage. The expectation would be not much different for them than it would be for a heterosexual individual: to suppress any sexual attraction one might feel for anyone other than his/her spouse.

In my view, sexual orientation is a continuum, not some neat division between gay, straight, and bisexual. I suppose that's one of the problems I have with the church is that it doesn't recognize the shades of sexuality, not to mention transgender and other sexual orientations.

[Scott Lloyd]

Ok lets ask it.  If a prophet asked you to live out the rest of your life not having any more sexual relations with your wife would you?  could you?  I am 35 years old and the answer is no ....

Suppose, heaven forbid, that you were to lose your wife and were unable or did not intend to remarry for a long time. Could you do it then?

[DBMormon]

Suppose, heaven forbid, that you were to lose your wife and were unable or did not intend to remarry for a long time. Could you do it then?

While I love my wife and I would have my world shattered if I lost her, I would not choose to be single for ever afterward.  I can't even imagine that being my choice.  As for unable.... Unless I am dibilatated and bedridden, that too isn't realistic.  And if I am bedridden then we are talking about forced to not be intimate rather then choosing not to do so.  Sorry, I, the round peg, don't fit in the square hole of this question.

[Scott Lloyd]

But that's my point: the church, by creating special rules just for them, makes it seem as though sexual orientation is, if not the sum total, the big part of one's existence that demands different treatment than other people.

 

 

It's God who sets the rules, and it's not just a matter of sexual orientation but of eternal family relationships that are promised to all who remain true and faithful, including those with SSA, and will be fulfilled, whether it be in this life or the next.

 

Again, this is not a helpful way to label gay members. I have a congenital disorder, and I will live with its consequences throughout my life. I accept that physical problem, which fortunately has been corrected so as not to be debilitating, but that's different from saying that someone who is gay is somehow defective or afflicted with a disorder.

 

On the contrary, for one who accepts the Church's teaching that there can be no wholesome expression of homosexuality, I should think it would be very helpful and comforting to know the condition is only temporary.

 

 

That's what I don't understand. Why is holding hands or giving some a hug not a wholesome expression? Unmarried heterosexuals consider those to be wholesome expressions of heterosexual love and attraction. What is the difference?

 

It depends on whether the expression is sexual in nature. There is certainly nothing wrong with platonic expressions between any individuals.

 

 

In my view, sexual orientation is a continuum, not some neat division between gay, straight, and bisexual.

 

I glad to hear that. It should bring hope to and for many people who desire to live the Lord's law of chastity and have only righteous expression of sexuality.

 

 

 

I suppose that's one of the problems I have with the church is that it doesn't recognize the shades of sexuality, ...

 

I'm not persuaded that it has no such recognition. Depends on whom you talk to, I guess.

 

... not to mention transgender and other sexual orientations.

 

This is a different matter. Gender is a matter of divine endowment, according to the proclamation on the family, and is not to be altered or tampered with in mortality.

Edited October 30, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

While I love my wife and I would have my world shattered if I lost her, I would not choose to be single for ever afterward.  I can't even imagine that being my choice. 

I didn't find my sweetheart until I was 41. It can be difficult for some to find the right person. And it seems to get harder the older you get.

 

I think you can at least imagine that if you try. All I'm asking is, if you ever were in that situation, do you really believe it would be impossible for you to remain chaste?

[thesometimesaint]

I disagree completely.  It is easy to sit back and say that but if you were asked to be celibate and have no sexual relations with anyone and to choose to do so as a heterosexual that it would be easy enough and worth it.  That is insane.  Sure it is thrust upon many, but not by choice (I am not speaking of those who actually choose this such as Catholic Priests or Nuns, and even these examples have serious flaws)  I sure couldn't do it.  "Hey Bill we command you to go your whole life not being intimate with the woman you love."  Sorry, I'd opt out.  Call me what you will but that is insane and it is easy to be a heterosexual and say it is about being sexually pure and so if I had to do that I would... it is a whole another story when a lifetime of celibacy is a choice and is that request is actually lived out and put into practice.

 

Help me understand here. So a church or religion that asks some of its members not to engage in some forms of sexual activity, and those members agree to follow those rules. It is somehow insane? I don't do name calling. The "worst" thing that the Saints can do is try a person for their membership if they refuse to meet the rules requirements. We can't take their money, imprison them, or physically harm them in any way. Being a Christian is hard work. at least for me it is, it requires a lot of sacrifice, and dedication. With the LDS version of Christianity it is even more so. It isn't for everyone, in this life. But if someone really wants it, and works to the end of their days at it. Then I'd say they are a Saint.

[DBMormon]

I didn't find my sweetheart until I was 41. It can be difficult for some to find the right person. And it seems to get harder the older you get.

 

I think you can at least imagine that if you try. All I'm asking is, if you ever were in that situation, do you really believe it would be impossible for you to remain chaste?

 

It would be impossible for me to choose to remain chaste when opportunities to be in love again were available.  If the chance to be remarried and close to someone again came along, I could not CHOOSE to ignore it and remain celibate.  Again Thank Goodness I am heterosexual and don't have to make choices between love and faith of this magnitude.  I have it easy compared to those who do have this choice

Edited October 30, 2013 by DBMormon

[rockpond]

I think it's inadequate to ask if you could simply cease sexual activity with your wife if asked by the prophet.  Or even if you could stay chaste and single if your spouse were to die.

 

The more appropriate question is, if you were asked by the prophet, could you give up all hope of ever having a spouse and children?  Could you abstain from dating anyone you are attracted to?  Could you give up all hope of ever finding, dating, or being with someone that you are attracted to?  Could you, while living without that hope, force yourself to not be a part of the social community that has those same attractions as you?

 

Some do.  I am amazed by their faith and determination and honor them for it.  Others do not and I honor them for the sacrifices they make as well.

[Scott Lloyd]

It would be impossible for me to choose to remain chaste when opportunities to be in love again were available.

You're not grasping what I'm asking. Suppose no such opportunity were available for quite a long time. (That is the reality that many, many sexually healthy, heterosexual people live with.) Are you saying that in such a situation you would find it impossible to maintain your chastity?

Edited October 30, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[DBMormon]

I think it's inadequate to ask if you could simply cease sexual activity with your wife if asked by the prophet.  Or even if you could stay chaste and single if your spouse were to die.

 

The more appropriate question is, if you were asked by the prophet, could you give up all hope of ever having a spouse and children?  Could you abstain from dating anyone you are attracted to?  Could you give up all hope of ever finding, dating, or being with someone that you are attracted to?  Could you, while living without that hope, force yourself to not be a part of the social community that has those same attractions as you?

 

Some do.  I am amazed by their faith and determination and honor them for it.  Others do not and I honor them for the sacrifices they make as well.

And frankly I could not.

[Scott Lloyd]

I think it's inadequate to ask if you could simply cease sexual activity with your wife if asked by the prophet.  Or even if you could stay chaste and single if your spouse were to die.

 

The more appropriate question is, if you were asked by the prophet, could you give up all hope of ever having a spouse and children? 

But that is not what faces even SSA people. In the eternities, no blessing of God will be denied any of His children who remain true and faithful.

[Darren10]

 

If a homosexual member is legally married (to someone of the same gender) in any jurisdiction, we could view that as not having violated the law of chastity (since they are married) and receive them in full fellowship but recognize that they are not temple worthy since we don't recognize same gender marriage.

 

Noooooooooooooooooo way!!! First, the fact that they are not, nor will they ever be (yes, revelation may come and I'll except that but it's not going to happen), temple worthy, means they are not in full fellowship. Second, You want a practicing homosexual to bless the sacrament? Take the sacrament? Give priesthood blessings? How does that work, exactly? I ask this even if the homosexual couple is legally married but remain chaste. Do you know of any un married heterosexual couple sleeping together but with no sex and in "full fellowship" as you described?

Edited October 30, 2013 by Darren10

[Scott Lloyd]

And frankly I could not.

What you appear to be saying is that you lack the ability to postpone sexual gratification even if such postponement would mean obtaining the greatest gifts of God

 

It sounds odd to say so, but I hope I'm misunderstanding you on this.

Edited October 30, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[DBMormon]

You're not grasping what I'm asking. Suppose no such opportunity were available for quite a long time. (That is the reality that many, many sexually healthy heterosexual people live with.) Are you saying that in such a situation you would find it impossible to maintain your chastity?

 

And your looking for a loop hole to prove a point that either is not a fair comparison or is not something I could do.

 

you are comparing apples to oranges.  One involves a lifetime commitment to do something knowing in this life there is no chance of a solution.  The other either removes your agency to choose or at least offers a chance it will resolve itself later on.  It is not a fair comparison.

 

If given the chance I choose to love and be loved we are asking them to choose otherwise.  right or wrong is not the debate only that as a "choice" it is harder then anything I and most heterosexuals have ever had to do.  Their challenge is much harder then any challenge I have ever had.

[DBMormon]

But that is not what faces even SSA people. In the eternities, no blessing of God will be denied any of His children who remain true and faithful.

Assuming one KNOWS and doesn't just have FAITH, I would agree with you.

[DBMormon]

What you appear to be saying is that you lack the ability to postpone sexual gratification even if such postponement would mean obtaining the greatest gifts of God

 

It sounds odd to say so, but I hope I'm misunderstanding you on this.

 

I am saying that if commanded to live a celibate life, I could not.  Will I break the law of chastity to gratify myself, nope.  But I also could not choose to avoid that kind of love and intimacy out of the hope it would all be resolved in the next life if a chance to marry was an option.

[Scott Lloyd]

And your looking for a loop hole to prove a point that either is not a fair comparison or is not something I could do.

 

Please answer the question: Are you telling us it would be impossible for you ever to delay sexual gratification, even temporarily? I'm really trying to understand your position.