My Logical Opposition To Our Policies With Homosexuality

[DBMormon]

First, I grasp the Brethren have put a pretty hard line in the sand the last two conferences.  I also realize they may indeed be sharing the will of the Lord, and hope and will sustain that as the case. (though past experience also leaves other interpretations open)

 

While I have a testimony of the Gospel, The Book of Mormon, and Jesus Christ.... I also struggle at times with questions and behavior within the Church.

 

Logically I am struggling deeply with our policy towards homosexuality.  Perhaps you can help me reconcile logically why we approach this issue the way we do (You can say God said so, but this isn't about a faith argument but rather a logical one)  If you simply want to argue that I should give room to the faith side of it.. fine, but not in this thread.  This thread is about logic and intellectual discourse.  I am trying to makes sense of why we approach it the way we do solely from a logical perspective.  In otherwords the "forget logic and trust God" is the most important facet of how I should deal with such issues, but for the sake of this thread that is not part of the discourse

 

Let me share some assumptions I make

 

-  Those LDS with SSA are NOT choosing to be attracted to the same gender in almost all if not all cases

 

-  A large chunk of LDS with SSA wish when they become aware of it for it to go away.  They despise it, they know this non-chioice according to the Church is unacceptable to God.

 

-  The atonement is about change and yet we as a Church have acknowledged that for these individuals to marry someone of the opposite gender is not helpful in almost all cases, that shock therapy has shown not to work in any % that is substantial, and as much as these LDS wish it was not so and try to change it, they in almost all cases can not.

 

-    Essentially in almost all cases the only solution is to CHOOSE to live celibate for one's entire life.

 

-  If this was required by heterosexual LDS, I am doubtful that any significant % of LDS would accept such direction.  I for one will openly admit that if I was required to stay single and celibate, unable to be intimate, unable to have the closeness that I do with my wife, I would find another avenue of faith where such things were not imposed on me as a law of Faith.  I would guess in most other's heart of hearts they would do the same.  Feel free to proclaim your thoughts on being able and willing to do such things or not

 

-  yes there are people who do not marry and are celibate in this life.  The large majority of them have not CHOSEN this and wish beyond anything that it was not so and would jump at the chance to love another in marriage relationship

 

-  Yes some are single and have chosen such  for religious vocation or haven't found the right person yet.  In the case of religious vocation - There are indications that there is a problem, perhaps severe, with issues like pornography, child abuse, and secret relationships.  In regards to those who have not found one yet, there is still the hope that they will

 

-  Seeing as in the large majority of LDS with SSA it is not something they can change, and we are asking them to do something that for me anyway would not be possible.  

================================================================

With That said

 

-  Why would we expect them to stay?   Are we surprised 90% of those with SSA leave the faith?

 

-  Is it fair to ask them to remain celibate when some of us, me included, would not choose that? For me it would simply be too difficult

 

- If we  #1 require celibacy, # 2 for those not celibate, we remove church participation - What hope is there of ever bringing this group closer to Christ through the Church?

 

If seems to me we ask an almost impossible insurmountable requirement which we admit is not their fault nor can they likely change which logically I can't reconcile.

 

I am genuinely asking for help understanding this issue.

Edited April 6, 2014 by DBMormon

[DBMormon]

Maybe as a added point having read here

 

The issue at heart is this quote

 

That marriage between a man and a woman is essential to the Creator's plan for the eternal destiny of His children.

 

 

How does Giving those with SSA more room in the Church and allow them to participate in spite of a behavior they neither chose nor can likely change in mortality affect the eternal destiny of God's Children without SSA.  What is the loss / gain of our Doctrine.  I think this is the heart of my issue.   In otherwords, The Church has explained that God sees homosexuality as a deterrent to his children's salvation.  How would more of his Children be affected negatively by homosexuality being more accepted?

 

- Would more people choose being gay?

- Would less people join the Church?

- Would there more sin in the world

-  would more people do hurtful things towards others

- Would less people make it back to God?

 

And if you see yes's to these questions please explain why and how you see that being the case?

 

Thank You

Bill Reel

Edited April 6, 2014 by DBMormon

[Deborah]

Very simply SSA is a condition of mortality. It will not be so when one has become perfected by the Atonement.

 

You seem to assume that those who are heterosexual do not have the same challenges as far as living a life of ceibacy. There are many single heterosexuals who are expected to live the same standard of chastity. We all have our crosses to bear and for some that may be SSA, for others it may be a crippling disease which limits choices, for others it may be a tendency toward alcholism. Yet in every condition one is expected to live the commandments through the Atonement. It isn't easy for anyone who bears these crosses, yet those who have SSA seem to think they are unique in their suffering and difficult choices.

 

How can the laws of God be changed, especially when it comes to eternal consequences? We aren't here just for this life but to "prove ourselves herewith." Yet joy can be found in whatever circumstances one finds himself, even if he must make sacrifices that seem too hard.

[cdowis]

1. Moral purity is a commandment of God, regardless of one's sexual orientation.   The church's "policy" is that sexual immorality is a sin.

 

2. Sex is moral only between a man and a woman who are legally and lawfully married.  Outside that relationship it is a sin.

 

3. Having homosexual OR heterosexual desires is not a sin as long as one keeps the law of chastity.

 

It saddens us whenever sin is committed, and when people leave the church because they cannot keep those standards.  And, no, we are not surprised that people leave the church considering that the world is tolerant and even encourages immorality.

[Bob Crockett]

I know several in the church who have strong homosexual orientation but have chosen to accept Jesus. Is it not a choice?

Edited April 6, 2014 by Bob Crockett

[california boy]

Very simply SSA is a condition of mortality. It will not be so when one has become perfected by the Atonement.

 

You seem to assume that those who are heterosexual do not have the same challenges as far as living a life of ceibacy. There are many single heterosexuals who are expected to live the same standard of chastity. We all have our crosses to bear and for some that may be SSA, for others it may be a crippling disease which limits choices, for others it may be a tendency toward alcholism. Yet in every condition one is expected to live the commandments through the Atonement. It isn't easy for anyone who bears these crosses, yet those who have SSA seem to think they are unique in their suffering and difficult choices.

 

How can the laws of God be changed, especially when it comes to eternal consequences? We aren't here just for this life but to "prove ourselves herewith." Yet joy can be found in whatever circumstances one finds himself, even if he must make sacrifices that seem too hard.

Let us not pretend the church treat gays the same as straights.  If it did, they would be allowed to marry who they love and sex outside of marriage would be discouraged and a sin.  Sex within the bounds of marriage for gays would not be a sin.

 

That said, the church certainly can have any policy it wants towards gays.  It can argue that gay marriage is sinful.  It can say tough luck if you are gay, just bear it.  But I think we should quit pretending that being gay and celibate is the same as being straight and celibate.  Like the op said.  Few straight members would follow the road asked of gay members.  Even members who are not married would have a difficult time knowing that they could never marry no matter who they meet or fall in love with.  Teaching that who you are as a gay person will never be a good thing can be devastating.

 

As far as being gay being a temporary condition.  No such doctrine exists.  No scripture supports this idea.  Certainly Joseph Smith's teaching that who we are on earth rises with us in the next life disputes that concept.  I am sorry, but being gay is not like being crippled.  If who we are is magically changed when we die, then what exactly is the purpose of this earth life.  Why couldn't God also magically make us all Christ-like when we die.

[Bob Crockett]

As far as being gay being a temporary condition.  No such doctrine exists.  No scripture supports this idea.  Certainly Joseph Smith's teaching that who we are on earth rises with us in the next life disputes that concept.  I am sorry, but being gay is not like being crippled.  If who we are is magically changed when we die, then what exactly is the purpose of this earth life.  Why couldn't God also magically make us all Christ-like when we die.

What do you think of the many homosexuals who have chosen to remain in the Church? Repent and forsake and all that?

[ERMD]

We have been encouraged to study the doctrines contained in "The Family: A Proclamation to the World." Doing so will answer these questions.

[Deborah]

As far as being gay being a temporary condition.  No such doctrine exists.  No scripture supports this idea. 

 

And yet the law of Celestial marriage and eternal progenity says nothing else. You can rationalize all you want but gay unions are not part of the celestial law of marriage.

Edited April 6, 2014 by Deborah

[Traela]

IMHO, one of the big problems is the idea that there is a stark split in whom you are attracted to: you are either homosexual or heterosexual, period. When in reality, psychologists believe that nearly everyone is actually bisexual under the right conditions. This was something I was actually taught back in the '80s, "Have sympathy for the gays, because you are probably a little bit gay too."

Instead, our culture teaches that if you are attracted to another person of your same sex, that's it. You are gay, you have no chance of ever being in a hetero relationship, forever and ever, amen. (Slate magazine had an article on this.) This is lovely for those who embrace victimhood. In fact, I believe victimhood is why those two Mormon men who have come out as gay in happy, hetero marriages are not welcome at gay Mormon conferences. Those with an agenda don't want to hear that there is another possible way.

This kind of thinking is what leads to despair, not the teachings of the Church, especially in those who don't want to embrace their same-sex attraction. They don't need to be told that they have to be celibate all their lives; they need to be told to leave themselves open to a hetero relationship, and to wait for the RIGHT person, the person whom they love but is also opposite sex. They won't be "cured", any more than a hetero man is cured of attraction to women he isn't married to, but they can be happy.

To much to ask? No, it's really not all that different from what women are asked to do- to wait for someone appropriate. I can think of three women right off the top of my head who broke off relationships with men they loved because they weren't right. Only one of them has married. One died single, the other is old enough to know that the chances of marrying someone she is attracted to, is in love with, and is a strong member of the Church are almost nonexistent.

[Deborah]

Alma 34:34 "Ye cannot say, when ye are brought to that awful crisis, that I will repent, that I will return to my God. Nay, ye cannot say this; for that same spirit which doth possess your bodies at the time that ye go out of this life, that same spirit will have power to possess your body in that eternal world."

 

All the more reason to repent now and live according to the laws of God. Do you really think in the eternities that you will be able to live the way you want even in contradiction to God's laws?

[stemelbow]

It seems to me I feel close to the way DBMormon does on this topic.  I'm just waiting, at this point, for someone to give me a reason to change my mind.  The dogmatic approach of "i'm saying so, so it must be so" isn't helping the discussion though. 

 

I look forward to a full picture of how this works out after this life.  But for now, it's a terribly troubling thing.  Perhaps the Church is wrong all along on this.  Maybe some day we'll see that.  It's hard to understand how the Church could be so wrong--kinda like the Church was wrong regarding the priesthood restriction issue.  Its possible though.  And if wrong hopefully the correction comes sooner rather than later. 

[DBMormon]

What do you think of the many homosexuals who have chosen to remain in the Church? Repent and forsake and all that?

 

First Bob, It isn't black in white in that there are gays and there are straight people.

 

Rather it is a spectrum.  

There are people attracted to both genders, there are people who are asexual meaning they don't want intimacy

There are people who are attracted to one gender but that attraction is only small.  So first we can not split people into either/or

 

Also to say "what about the 10% who stay"  

Why do they stay - have they determined to live the gospel and be celibate?  Are they hopeful a Doctrinal change happens?  Are they personally against gay marriage and "get" the doctrine and support it?  Are they in fear their family will abandon them?  Do they have strong desire for intimacy and relationship (some of us are more social then others in the human race)

 

I am never a fan of judging 90% of people by what 10% of people choose to do especially when their reasons vary in mileage.

[stemelbow]

First Bob, It isn't black in white in that there are gays and there are straight people.

 

Rather it is a spectrum.  

There are people attracted to both genders, there are people who are asexual meaning they don't want intimacy

There are people who are attracted to one gender but that attraction is only small.  So first we can not split people into either/or

 

Also to say "what about the 10% who stay"  

Why do they stay - have they determined to live the gospel and be celibate?  Are they hopeful a Doctrinal change happens?  Are they personally against gay marriage and "get" the doctrine and support it?  Are they in fear their family will abandon them?  Do they have strong desire for intimacy and relationship (some of us are more social then others in the human race)

 

I am never a fan of judging 90% of people by what 10% of people choose to do especially when their reasons vary in mileage.

 

Many who stay in the Church and are attracted to those of the same sex do get married.  They just suppress it. 

[DBMormon]

We have been encouraged to study the doctrines contained in "The Family: A Proclamation to the World." Doing so will answer these questions.

 My struggle here is that it was originally taught this was revelation and that statement was retracted.  If they came out and said without a doubt this came from the LORD then I would be left with no ambiguity, but it seems they are uncomfortable saying this came by revelation, but rather by committee.  Also we have quotes from the RS presidency at the time who said it would have said different things had they been involved.  That doesn't sound much like the word of the Lord if his word varies by who has input and who doesn't.  Sorry that is messier then simply throwing it out as a catch all.

[DBMormon]

IMHO, one of the big problems is the idea that there is a stark split in whom you are attracted to: you are either homosexual or heterosexual, period. When in reality, psychologists believe that nearly everyone is actually bisexual under the right conditions. This was something I was actually taught back in the '80s, "Have sympathy for the gays, because you are probably a little bit gay too."

Instead, our culture teaches that if you are attracted to another person of your same sex, that's it. You are gay, you have no chance of ever being in a hetero relationship, forever and ever, amen. (Slate magazine had an article on this.) This is lovely for those who embrace victimhood. In fact, I believe victimhood is why those two Mormon men who have come out as gay in happy, hetero marriages are not welcome at gay Mormon conferences. Those with an agenda don't want to hear that there is another possible way.

This kind of thinking is what leads to despair, not the teachings of the Church, especially in those who don't want to embrace their same-sex attraction. They don't need to be told that they have to be celibate all their lives; they need to be told to leave themselves open to a hetero relationship, and to wait for the RIGHT person, the person whom they love but is also opposite sex. They won't be "cured", any more than a hetero man is cured of attraction to women he isn't married to, but they can be happy.

To much to ask? No, it's really not all that different from what women are asked to do- to wait for someone appropriate. I can think of three women right off the top of my head who broke off relationships with men they loved because they weren't right. Only one of them has married. One died single, the other is old enough to know that the chances of marrying someone she is attracted to, is in love with, and is a strong member of the Church are almost nonexistent.

 

The Church actually goes against your recommendation. 

 

PUBLIC AFFAIRS: Is heterosexual marriage ever an option for those with homosexual feelings?

ELDER OAKS: We are sometimes asked about whether marriage is a remedy for these feelings that we have been talking about. President Hinckley, faced with the fact that apparently some had believed it to be a remedy, and perhaps that some Church leaders had even counseled marriage as the remedy for these feelings, made this statement: “Marriage should not be viewed as a therapeutic step to solve problems such as homosexual inclinations or practices.” To me that means that we are not going to stand still to put at risk daughters of God who would enter into such marriages under false pretenses or under a cloud unknown to them. Persons who have this kind of challenge that they cannot control could not enter marriage in good faith.

On the other hand, persons who have cleansed themselves of any transgression and who have shown their ability to deal with these feelings or inclinations and put them in the background, and feel a great attraction for a daughter of God and therefore desire to enter marriage and have children and enjoy the blessings of eternity — that’s a situation when marriage would be appropriate.

President Hinckley said that marriage is not a therapeutic step to solve problems.

 

[teddyaware]

First, I grasp the Brethren have put a pretty hard line in the sand the last two conferences.  I also realize they may indeed be sharing the will of the Lord, and hope and will sustain that as the case. (though past experience also leaves other interpretations open)

 

While I have a testimony of the Gospel, The Book of Mormon, and Jesus Christ.... I also struggle at times with questions and behavior within the Church.

 

Logically I am struggling deeply with our policy towards homosexuality.  Perhaps you can help me reconcile logically why we approach this issue the way we do (You can say God said so, but this isn't about a faith argument but rather a logical one)  If you simply want to argue that I should give room to the faith side of it.. fine, but not in this thread.  This thread is about logic and intellectual discourse.  I am trying to makes sense of why we approach it the way we do solely from a logical perspective.  In otherwords the "forget logic and trust God" is the most important facet of how I should deal with such issues, but for the sake of this thread that is not part of the discourse

 

Let me share some assumptions I make

 

-  Those LDS with SSA are NOT choosing to be attracted to the same gender in almost all if not all cases

 

-  A large chunk of LDS with SSA wish when they become aware of it for it to go away.  They despise it, they know this non-chioice according to the Church is unacceptable to God.

 

-  The atonement is about change and yet we as a Church have acknowledged that for these individuals to marry someone of the opposite gender is not helpful in almost all cases, that shock therapy has shown not to work in any % that is substantial, and as much as these LDS wish it was not so and try to change it, they in almost all cases can not.

 

-    Essentially in almost all cases the only solution is to CHOOSE to live celibate for one's entire life.

 

-  If this was required by heterosexual LDS, I am doubtful that any significant % of LDS would accept such direction.  I for one will openly admit that if I was required to stay single and celibate, unable to be intimate, unable to have the closeness that I do with my wife, I would find another avenue of faith where such things were not imposed on me as a law of Faith.  I would guess in most other's heart of hearts they would do the same.  Feel free to proclaim your thoughts on being able and willing to do such things or not

 

-  yes there are people who do not marry and are celibate in this life.  The large majority of them have not CHOSEN this and wish beyond anything that it was not so and would jump at the chance to love another in marriage relationship

 

-  Yes some are single and have chosen such  for religious vocation or haven't found the right person yet.  In the case of religious vocation - There are indications that there is a problem, perhaps severe, with issues like pornography, child abuse, and secret relationships.  In regards to those who have not found one yet, there is still the hope that they will

 

-  Seeing as in the large majority of LDS with SSA it is not something they can change, and we are asking them to do something that for me anyway would not be possible.  

================================================================

With That said

 

-  Why would we expect them to stay?   Are we surprised 90% of those with SSA leave the faith?

 

-  Is it fair to ask them to remain celibate when some of us, me included, would not choose that? For me it would simply be too difficult

 

- If we  #1 require celibacy, # 2 for those not celibate, we remove church participation - What hope is there of ever bringing this group closer to Christ through the Church?

 

If seems to me we ask an almost impossible insurmountable requirement which we admit is not their fault nor can they likely change which logically I can't reconcile.

 

I am genuinely asking for help understanding this issue.

The answer is very simple and will not require agonizingly long explanations: After the human race is fully redeemed from the fall by the glorious resurrection from the dead, all saved beings -- whether in the celestial, terrestrial or telestial kingdoms -- will move far beyond the fallen nature and be healed of the fall's distorting effects upon the body, heart and mind. In other words, we are all going to outgrow the distorted spiritual state we're now existing in; a state where, for now, the natural man and the lusts of the flesh play such a significant role in the battle against sin, a battle that is nothing less that the war in heaven brought down to and continued on earth. Even the saved beings in the telestial kingdom will have a large enough measure of the Holy Spirit and divine grace that they will no longer have temptations or desires to violate the will of God and live in opposition eternal law and the divine order of things. So why feed into and encourage a transient earthly phenomenon, when that particular manifestation of the fallen nature will no longer exist or play any role amongst the saved in the hereafter? The Church has a long-range eternal perspective and is not engaged in wanting to perpetuate the elements of the fallen state in the eternities.

[DBMormon]

It seems to me I feel close to the way DBMormon does on this topic.  I'm just waiting, at this point, for someone to give me a reason to change my mind.  The dogmatic approach of "i'm saying so, so it must be so" isn't helping the discussion though. 

 

I look forward to a full picture of how this works out after this life.  But for now, it's a terribly troubling thing.  Perhaps the Church is wrong all along on this.  Maybe some day we'll see that.  It's hard to understand how the Church could be so wrong--kinda like the Church was wrong regarding the priesthood restriction issue.  Its possible though.  And if wrong hopefully the correction comes sooner rather than later. 

 

Thank you.  I won't demand change but I will point out the seeming unfairness of a standard that I personally could not live by.  

 

I hurt for these people and find the prospect of choosing to not have love of that kind to be a lose lose in this life.  I will sustain the Church's policy and not fight against it but I deeply struggle to see it as The Church says the LORD sees it

[DBMormon]

Many who stay in the Church and are attracted to those of the same sex do get married.  They just suppress it. 

 

or horrible repercussion in the marriage occur, divorce, damaged relationships, and more hurt than any would want.  Most gays who marry the opposite gender have situations that do not end well hence the Church's recommendation not to marry thinking it will solve the problem or make it easier but rather it will be harder, as one comes face to face with the issue being what it is.

[Bob Crockett]

First Bob, It isn't black in white in that there are gays and there are straight people.

 

Rather it is a spectrum.  

There are people attracted to both genders, there are people who are asexual meaning they don't want intimacy

There are people who are attracted to one gender but that attraction is only small.  So first we can not split people into either/or

 

Also to say "what about the 10% who stay"  

Why do they stay - have they determined to live the gospel and be celibate?  Are they hopeful a Doctrinal change happens?  Are they personally against gay marriage and "get" the doctrine and support it?  Are they in fear their family will abandon them?  Do they have strong desire for intimacy and relationship (some of us are more social then others in the human race)

 

I am never a fan of judging 90% of people by what 10% of people choose to do especially when their reasons vary in mileage.

You have no basis for your percentages. I think it is more like 50/50. Half stick it out one way or the other and rise to positions of leadership. But, of course, there aren't any studies. It would not be politically correct to conduct such studies.

There was a general authority who was ex'd, came back and lived out his days in church leadership positions.

[DBMormon]

Also it can be argued by Jesus seems to almost accept that some people being gay from birth is what it is

 

Mathew 19: 11 - 12  -

 All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given.  For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother’s womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.

 

 

Someone argued that this strictly speaks of those castrated, but find for me a significant % of castrated at birth to even be a point of reference, also Jesus speaks of his teaching being a hard thing to take, a difficult pill to swallow which I don't see any of this as such unless we are talking about homosexuality which is a fair translation of the verse if we take Eunich as meaning "one who does not have attraction for the opposite gender or suppresses that attraction or has that attraction suppressed for him"

 

Jesus here if meaning gay could have condemed but he chose to imply that those listening will have a hard time accepting what he is saying  about the eunichs but it is so.

[DBMormon]

You have no basis for your percentages. I think it is more like 50/50. Half stick it out one way or the other and rise to positions of leadership. But, of course, there aren't any studies. It would not be politically correct to conduct such studies.

There was a general authority who was ex'd, came back and lived out his days in church leadership positions.

 

50% / 50% .......   ok.  Don't be offended that I will completely disregard your belief in the %

[ERMD]

My struggle here is that it was originally taught this was revelation and that statement was retracted.  If they came out and said without a doubt this came from the LORD then I would be left with no ambiguity, but it seems they are uncomfortable saying this came by revelation, but rather by committee.  Also we have quotes from the RS presidency at the time who said it would have said different things had they been involved.  That doesn't sound much like the word of the Lord if his word varies by who has input and who doesn't.  Sorry that is messier then simply throwing it out as a catch all.

Sorry, it is doctrine.

Gordon B. Hinckley:

"With so much of sophistry that is passed off as truth, with so much of deception concerning standards and values, with so much of allurement and enticement to take on the slow stain of the world, we have felt to warn and forewarn. In furtherance of this we of the First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve Apostles now issue a proclamation to the Church and to the world as a declaration and reaffirmation of standards, doctrines, and practices relative to the family which the prophets, seers, and revelators of this church have repeatedly stated throughout its history”

[Teancum]

I know several in the church who have strong homosexual orientation but have chosen to accept Jesus. Is it not a choice?

 

 

I know several who are homosexual who have accepted Jesus but are not LDS. 

[Rob Osborn]

The bottom line is that homosexuality is a sin. We are living in a world where the acceptance of sexual immorality is becoming normal and even elevated with praise. Its all the work of Satan though. Satan pushes forward his ideas of it being "normal" and then gets TV producers to flood the market showing how its "normal", getting people confused about sexual identity and then convincing the minds that watch that not only is it acceptable but also "natural". As such, more and more people experiment, get confused themselves over sexual identity and then end up also in support of the sexual immoral practice of homosexuality. The power of suggestion is great. Its rather bizarre to me that we are even discussing these matters! Why are there more SSA people now than before? Because of Satans agenda to push people towards it. Its that simple. There are a few rare cases where peoples genetics are screwed up but I honestly believe most cases of homosexuality are because of choice/conditions that led to that choice.