Ideas For Handling Of Gays Within The Church

[Darren10]

I've said more than once that choosing to act on one's sexuality is a choice, but the sexuality itself isn't.

 

I must have missed that. Where did you say that?

[halconero]

delete 

Edited October 31, 2013 by halconero

[jkwilliams]

The Church did not make sure he never works again. Good grief. He can't work because of his choices, not The Church's. What, there's no California university willing to hire him? Must be because of the high number of Mormons there and all their donation dollars.

 

Mike has been blacklisted from Mormon Studies programs, which is his area of expertise. Most Mormon Studies programs, such as the one at Claremont, rely on funding either directly from the church or from wealthy Mormons. Basically, when he's been up for a job, the church has threatened to pull its financial support (and that of contributing church members) for the program, essentially making Mike unemployable.

 

From what I understand, Mike was fired from BYU for publishing about the plural marriages that were authorized after the 1890 manifesto and even after the 1904 second manifesto.

[halconero]

delete.

[jkwilliams]

I must have missed that. Where did you say that?

 

Ahem.

 

There's a difference between being gay and acting on your sexual orientation. Your religion recognizes that being gay may not be a choice, but acting on it is a choice (science agrees, oddly enough). Osborn, on the other hand, thinks both are choices.

[halconero]

They all have choice in their actions. Some do not have a choice in their attractions though, yes.

 

Okay, earlier you seemed to indicate that everyone could choose their attractions, like when you told my roommate that he could choose to be attracted to girls. (I didn't bother to tell him that response, as it would've probably gotten him riled up over years of struggling, trying and failing to change his orientation).

 

I can agree with you that everyone has a choice in their actions. 

 

I personally don't have a choice in my attractions. I'm attracted to girls, that's just how I am. I don't have to make a conscious effort to be attracted to them. I experience it just like I experience hunger for food and water.

 

What I do consciously do is eat, drink and avoid dwelling on sexual thoughts concerning those girls. I chose to make myself an omelette tonight. I decided to buy some Simply Apple from the store and down a glass. I decided to write a letter to my girlfriend serving a mission, rather than think about the women around campus.

[rockpond]

The Church did not make sure he never works again. Good grief. He can't work because of his choices, not The Church's. What, there's no California university willing to hire him? Must be because of the high number of Mormons there and all their donation dollars.

Yep, his choices. Particularly his choice to research and write about LDS history at a time when one of the most powerful men in the church felt that such "intellectualism" was a threat to the institution.

But, whatever, as John Hamer says... Our day of reckoning will come.

[california boy]

Your list seems to exaggerate what is really required of the membership.  The Church teaches us to be virtuous and chaste before marriage in the temple. That has nothing to do with touching, kissing, hugging, etc. Do you think you can tough anther human and remain virtuous?  Of course; there is not need for exaggeration; it is just as deceitful for you as it is for others holding an alternative perspective.

 

Number 3 is also an exaggeration, but even more so. Cannot go to a movie with a person of the same sex or dinner?  CFR

 

Number 4 - I think this is where there is an opportunity for real discussion. We have no knowledge if a gay person now is a gay person then. One could postulate gay people are just never in the celestial kingdom. I think that gay people are created just the way they are by our Father and still not know what happens in the next life for them. We can read scripture and strive to understand the will of God for each of us; strive to follow his will, his teachings, and his commandments; we know we will fail, fall down, and sin. The challenge is to get back up, be repentant, and keep trying.

 

It is a foundational understanding of the Kingdom of God that its very meaning or raison d'etre is to invite all unto Christ; to come just as they are to him and become new by being washed in his blood. Christ desires each of us to follow him.

 

Can anyone be a member and have questions unanswered about what is the next life?  It is my personal belief that we don't really know what the Celestial Kingdom is or exactly what anyone of us will do or be. We have some ideas, but I think most fall far short of the future reality. What is unquestionable is that the Celestial Kingdom is dwelling in the presence of the Godhead and being together with other sons and daughters of God sealed in a chain of creation from beginning to end. 

 

You have chosen to break from that chain of sealing, but I don't think you are outside of the family of God. There are many paths; but I remain committed that the path to our Father is found within the Church of Jesus Christ. I also believe that our Father still beckons to you, the Holy Spirit still touches you. The question for you, as for each of us, is will you respond to his call.

I only wished that my list was exagerated.  Unfortunately it is not.  All of these things were told to me both by my bishop as well as my stake president.  They cited the handbook at the time as well as church publications.  They were very apologetic, but could really offer nothing to change the situation they outlined to me.  I will try and go through each of the items and give you the documentation you requested.  The real question is, will it really make any difference in your attitudes towards gays?

 

 

1.  The church requiring me to be celibate for the rest of my life, while difficult, was something that I could agree to do if asked to by God.  As has been pointed out, many members are asked to be celibate throughout their lives and will be rewarded in the next for their faithfulness.

 

 

I don't think you would dispute that this is the position for gay members.  If you need documentation on this as well I would be glad to provide it.

 

 

2,  Never touching, kissing, hugging or any other physical contact or any hope of ever having that kind of relationship with another male member was a way more difficult commandment to keep than being celibate.  I thought long and hard about this commandment given to me by the church.  Maybe I could do it.  It would be difficult, but I really love the church and God.

 

 

 

No only did my bishop and stake president refer to the handbook, but they also referred to BYU Honor Code.  Here is what it says.  I

 

"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."

 

Other sources on this issue were quoted earlier in this thread.

 

3. Being alone for the rest of my life without even the ability to have dinner, or go to a movie or socialize with another gay person was even more difficult.  No matter what others may think, it takes someone who is gay and has lived their life dealing with that issue, that I really wanted to have a relationship with.  Even with the understanding that the first two commandments would still have to be observed.  In reality, I realistically think I would be unable to live this way.  My thoughts that I would have to leave the church in the end, was probably the real results of being gay.  Even if I really wanted and hoped that I could do this, I just didn't think I could do it.

 

 

I specifically asked my church leaders if I was allowed to date, go to the movies, or socialize with other gays.  They said no.  Dating is designed to lead to marriage.  Since that is not allowed, it only leads to temptation.  Again, they cited the guidance from the church handbook.

 

 

4.  Eternal reward can be a powerful motivator.  The idea of sacrificing so much while here on earth in hopes of an eternity of happiness was essential for any of this to work.  But the church does not offer anything for gay children of God.  If the church could just say that some day, if I was faithful to all that God has asked of me while I was on this earth, then I could live for eternity with a man in a relationship that I could not possibly imagine, then maybe I could be strong enough to fulfill the requirements that the church has put forth.  (I say church at this point, because I truly do not believe that the church leaders has any idea what God has planned for his gay children.  God simply has not revealed a single thing about this,  So at this point, it is only the brethren guessing that the plan of salvation is the same for straight children as gay children.)

 

 

I have no idea what your response was to number 4.  Do you think the church has any idea what happens to gay children after death?  Will they be with a partner?  If you could tell me what is actually promised to gays when we die, I am all ears.  (not looking for speculation, but what has actually been revealed).  Of course all answers to the afterlife have not been revealed.  BUT there are clear promises and covenants given to you if you are straight.  No such promises or covenants exist for gay members.

 

I only share my perspective to explain why I made the choices I have made.  Perhaps you would have made different choices.  I am not going to really defend my choices, but to pretend that the basis of what I made my choices is not church policy is just not what I experienced.  

 

Perhaps I  can ask you if you have a CFR that the church allows gays to date, hold hands, kiss and hug other gay men.  If you really could find such a policy and could tell me what my "eternal reward" would be by living a celibate life, I would  seriously reconsider the choices I have made.  

[Darren10]

Yep, his choices. Particularly his choice to research and write about LDS history at a time when one of the most powerful men in the church felt that such "intellectualism" was a threat to the institution. But, whatever, as John Hamer says... Our day of reckoning will come.

 

Yup, saying that homosexuality was accepted until the 1940s is perfectly intellectual, fair, and non biased.

 

When our day of reckoning comes, please protect me, rockpond.

[Rob Osborn]

Rob's position was that your sexual orientation was a choice, which is what I have been responding to. I've said more than once that choosing to act on one's sexuality is a choice, but the sexuality itself isn't. Maybe you agree with me after all.

My belief is that most acting gay people choose that lifestyle- its a choice they make, they werent born that way. There are factors in life that can sway people to make choices on their sexuality especially in our morally corrupt society we live in. Any way you dice it up, acting on ones homosexual attractions is a sin just as acting on adulterous attractions are also a sin.

As for orientation I firmly believe that the majority of gay people have those attractions because of events that happen in mortality. Maybe its a chance encounter at scout camp, perhaps its a dare at an all catholic school but in the end, our epidemic of homosexuality in society is latgely the cause of Satan and his works.

[Darren10]

Okay, earlier you seemed to indicate that everyone could choose their attractions, like when you told my roommate that he could choose to be attracted to girls. (I didn't bother to tell him that response, as it would've probably gotten him riled up over years of struggling, trying and failing to change his orientation).

 

I can agree with you that everyone has a choice in their actions. 

 

I personally don't have a choice in my attractions. I'm attracted to girls, that's just how I am. I don't have to make a conscious effort to be attracted to them. I experience it just like I experience hunger for food and water.

 

What I do consciously do is eat, drink and avoid dwelling on sexual thoughts concerning those girls. I chose to make myself an omelette tonight. I decided to buy some Simply Apple from the store and down a glass. I decided to write a letter to my girlfriend serving a mission, rather than think about the women around campus.

 

Exactly. How you use your sexuality is a choice. While I think your roommate is a really good man and has a very firm tendencies of attraction with members of the same gender, yes, he can make a choice to be attracted to girls just as much as I can make a choice to be attracted to males.

[Darren10]

jkwilliams #205;

 

Thanks.

[Darren10]

Mike has been blacklisted from Mormon Studies programs, which is his area of expertise. Most Mormon Studies programs, such as the one at Claremont, rely on funding either directly from the church or from wealthy Mormons. Basically, when he's been up for a job, the church has threatened to pull its financial support (and that of contributing church members) for the program, essentially making Mike unemployable.

 

From what I understand, Mike was fired from BYU for publishing about the plural marriages that were authorized after the 1890 manifesto and even after the 1904 second manifesto.

 

I'm sure there's more to his publications than that. Being blacklisted from Mormon Studies is one thing, it's another that the LDS church makes sure he "never works again". He can do his Mormon studies at any university willing to hire him to do so. And, in the end, it was his choices which got him fired, not the LDS Church's regarding what he chose to do, only to react to what he did.

[Darren10]

jkwiliams;

 

This makes a lot more sense to me than what Quinn proposes as the LDs Church's acceptance of homosexual behavior until the 1940s:

 

At the age of 43, Smith was ordained a high priest and Patriarch to the Church on 8 October 1942 by Church President Heber J. Grant. He served but four years before it was reported by the church that he had requested to be released from his position. His request was granted by Church President George Albert Smith on 6 October 1946, with the church announcing that Smith was released for reasons of "ill health."^[3] After Smith's death it was discovered that the patriarch had been involved in a homosexual affair with a 21-year-old U.S. Navy sailor, who was also a Latter-day Saint.^[4]

 

After being released, Smith took his family to Honolulu, Hawaii, where he continued to raise his family. For a time, Smith was not allowed to hold any position in the church, but reportedly was "treated with compassion."^[5] In 1957, Smith was again allowed to serve in the church after he had forsaken his homosexual behavior.^[6] Shortly thereafter, Smith's wife Ruth wrote a letter to Church President David O. McKay expressing her gratitude for the church's help, stating, "I know, better than anyone else, the trial our family has been to you and to the authorities."^[6] In 1957 and after, Smith served as a member of his stake's high council.

Smith died and was buried in Salt Lake City, Utah.

 

Can't beat the omniscient Wiki.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Fielding_Smith_(1899-1964)

[rockpond]

Yup, saying that homosexuality was accepted until the 1940s is perfectly intellectual, fair, and non biased.

 

When our day of reckoning comes, please protect me, rockpond.

 

His Same-Sex Dynamics book was a work of scholarly research, honored by the American Historical Association.  If you wish to dispute his facts, you ought to gather some of your own.

 

No need to protect you from the day of reckoning.  It's nothing to fear.  We can weather that storm as we have weathered others.  

[Sky]

Sexual orientation is not a choice.  Actions are.  Simple enough?  

 

I can't simply choose to be attracted to women in the same way or intensity that I am to men.  It's just not how my brain chemistry is wired or whatever other factors may be involved.  In that sense, I'm gay.  Just in the same sense as those of you who are attracted to the opposite gender are straight.  Saying that it's a choice is not true and can cause much hurt.         

 

For ideas of how to "handle" gays within the Church, as well as getting the most updated information on how the Church is starting to approach this subject, I suggest we all refer to and study the mormonsandgays.org website.          

[Calm]

I am curious....do those of you who believe there is no choice in whom one is attracted to, do you believe this just in the sense of gender or do you believe there are types of women/men who you can't be attracted to and others who are almost irresistible in their attraction (none of which forces you to see yourself as a romantic or lifelong partner based solely on sexual attraction.

 

At what point does instinctual attraction starts to be outweighed by other physical factors you value.  For example, while you may think someone is your ultimate lover from across the room, as you come close you  may notice some other factors...a certain perfume, crooked teeth, thinning, oily hair or a bad dye job and then when the exquisite mouth opens a giggle is released which is the equivalent to having nails being drawn across a chalkboard effect.

 

Perhaps someone can explain to me as well at what point do these irresistible, immutable attractions that leave one no choice change to irresistible repulsions as I have heard described by some divorced couples.

Edited October 31, 2013 by calmoriah

[Storm Rider]

I only wished that my list was exagerated.  Unfortunately it is not.  All of these things were told to me both by my bishop as well as my stake president.  They cited the handbook at the time as well as church publications.  They were very apologetic, but could really offer nothing to change the situation they outlined to me.  I will try and go through each of the items and give you the documentation you requested.  The real question is, will it really make any difference in your attitudes towards gays?

 

 

 

I don't think you would dispute that this is the position for gay members.  If you need documentation on this as well I would be glad to provide it.

 

 

 

 

No only did my bishop and stake president refer to the handbook, but they also referred to BYU Honor Code.  Here is what it says.  I

 

"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."

 

Other sources on this issue were quoted earlier in this thread.

 

 

I specifically asked my church leaders if I was allowed to date, go to the movies, or socialize with other gays.  They said no.  Dating is designed to lead to marriage.  Since that is not allowed, it only leads to temptation.  Again, they cited the guidance from the church handbook.

 

 

 

I have no idea what your response was to number 4.  Do you think the church has any idea what happens to gay children after death?  Will they be with a partner?  If you could tell me what is actually promised to gays when we die, I am all ears.  (not looking for speculation, but what has actually been revealed).  Of course all answers to the afterlife have not been revealed.  BUT there are clear promises and covenants given to you if you are straight.  No such promises or covenants exist for gay members.

 

I only share my perspective to explain why I made the choices I have made.  Perhaps you would have made different choices.  I am not going to really defend my choices, but to pretend that the basis of what I made my choices is not church policy is just not what I experienced.  

 

Perhaps I  can ask you if you have a CFR that the church allows gays to date, hold hands, kiss and hug other gay men.  If you really could find such a policy and could tell me what my "eternal reward" would be by living a celibate life, I would  seriously reconsider the choices I have made.  

 

 

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.

[jkwilliams]

Yup, saying that homosexuality was accepted until the 1940s is perfectly intellectual, fair, and non biased.

 

When our day of reckoning comes, please protect me, rockpond.

Where did Quinn say that homosexuality was accepted until the 1940s? I read his book but must have missed that part.

[canard78]

For the most part, yes, gays choose that lifestyle based on circumstances, events, etc. I don't buy into the whole "born that way" attitude. A hundred years ago there were very few gay people. Nowdays there are increasingly more and more gay people- they are not born that way, they choose to be that way.

We keep treating this issue as if its a natural thing- people just born that way. I dont buy it.

 

Rob, are you also the guy who believes in a hemispherical model for the Book of Mormon?

 

Are you happy to believe things, in spite of the evidence, for a lot of topics?

[Alan]

I'm with Rob on this.

I don't buy this "I'm born that way" nonsense either.

I personally know two so-called homosexuals who were, apparently, "born that way", and who are now married to women, have a number of children, and totally reject their previous statements. They now say they weren't born that way afterall.

 

I am personally quite happy with the way the church currently deals with this issue. We do not need to make any accomodation for sinful behaviour.

[jkwilliams]

I am curious....do those of you who believe there is no choice in whom one is attracted to, do you believe this just in the sense of gender or do you believe there are types of women/men who you can't be attracted to and others who are almost irresistible in their attraction (none of which forces you to see yourself as a romantic or lifelong partner based solely on sexual attraction.

It's not about immutable attractions but rather the lack of attraction. Can you choose to be attracted to someone who is not attractive to you? I don't think so, and the Evergreen experience appears to support my belief. My wife has beautiful green eyes, which I find quite attractive; I doubt very much that I could will that attraction away. But no, it's not her eyes that keep us married.

 

At what point does instinctual attraction starts to be outweighed by other physical factors you value.  For example, while you may think someone is your ultimate lover from across the room, as you come close you  may notice some other factors...a certain perfume, crooked teeth, thinning, oily hair or a bad dye job and then when the exquisite mouth opens a giggle is released which is the equivalent to having nails being drawn across a chalkboard effect.

A basic fact of human biology is that sexual attraction is part of the process of choosing a sexual partner, so as you put it, the potential partner must possess at least some physical factors you value. For a gay man or woman, an opposite-sex partner does not have any of those physical attractions. So, when there's no instinctual attraction, it's kind of a non-starter.

Let's say, as an example, that you were back in your younger dating days (I can barely remember those days for me). You probably know what you find attractive in a man in terms of his physical and personality traits, so you would naturally select men who had those traits, weighing some as more important than others. But then let's say that, for whatever reason, you must only date women. I'm sure you could meet women with some of those personality and physical traits, but would it matter? On a basic level, you are not going to be attracted to a woman, so one of the primary foundations of a marital relationship (physical intimacy) is going to be absent or at least extremely awkward.

Now let's say that, because you aren't attracted to women, you decide to stay single and celibate to remain temple worthy. You may be able to handle that, but you are told that you can't date men, can't have any affectionate physical contact with them, not even a hug or an affectionate kiss on the cheek. In that case, you'd have every reason in the world to change what you find attractive. But can you do it? Can willpower, therapy, or anything make you attracted to something that is not instinctively attractive to you? The experience of reparative therapy programs tells me the answer is no.

 

Perhaps someone can explain to me as well at what point do these irresistible, immutable attractions that leave one no choice change to irresistible repulsions as I have heard described by some divorced couples.

I've never met any divorced people who say that what they found attractive physically in their spouse when they married is now something they find repulsive. Can you give an example? I do know divorced people who say that personality traits they found initially attractive they later realized were more than they seemed. For example, a good friend of mine married a woman who was, as he put it, "totally put together." She was organized, decisive, and accomplished. With time, he says, he discovered that her need to control everything so that it came out right was a mask for severe insecurities, and it was the insecurity and constant fear of failure that drove her. Is he right? I don't know, but he still says she's a beautiful woman, which she is.

[canard78]

I'm with Rob on this.

I don't buy this "I'm born that way" nonsense either.

I personally know two so-called homosexuals who were, apparently, "born that way", and who are now married to women, have a number of children, and totally reject their previous statements. They now say they weren't born that way afterall.

 

I am personally quite happy with the way the church currently deals with this issue. We do not need to make any accomodation for sinful behaviour.

 

 

Hi Alan, I've been hoping you might let us know what year you went to the Elder Mattsson fireside. I'd asked several times but you never told us the year.

[jkwilliams]

I'm with Rob on this.

I don't buy this "I'm born that way" nonsense either.

I personally know two so-called homosexuals who were, apparently, "born that way", and who are now married to women, have a number of children, and totally reject their previous statements. They now say they weren't born that way afterall.

They have a name for such people: bisexuals.

 

I am personally quite happy with the way the church currently deals with this issue. We do not need to make any accomodation for sinful behaviour.

No one is asking for such an accommodation of sin, at least no one I know. What I hope for is more compassionate treatment of people who are in genuine pain. If it were up to me, I would say we should treat people not as an "issue" or a doctrine but as people to whom doctrines apply. I recognize that people like you would rather label these folks perverts and wash your hands of it, but I think we can do better than that.

[DBMormon]

What part of that scripture speaks of homosexuals?

 

Do you not know what a Eunuch is?  Someone is does not have normal sexual attraction either by castration or some other means