My Logical Opposition To Our Policies With Homosexuality

[Scott Lloyd]

By the way, I should be clear that I am not an advocate for changing Church policy on this issue right now. Wade I think is right that we deal with what we see as normal situations and we create policy that works there. My concern is about the dialogue, and the outreach. And I note that this dialogue has changed a great deal, and I suspect that it will continue to change a great deal (even while I do not expect changes in policy). Nor does this sort of approach deal well with the idea of same-sex attraction directly. I assume that at some point, we will discover various contributing factors to same-sex attraction - and then we will have a very different discussion (both inside and outside the church) - particularly if, for example, we were to discover that same-sex attraction is preventable during fetal development. That's an entirely different set of issues.

 

The whole point of my intrusion here is exactly what you point out Wade. We all know that there are situations where things will have to be sorted out later - because the Church simply isn't able to work things out at the present time - and some of these issues are related to gender identity (a point that you agreed with). I can envision a future where for those individuals for whom same-sex attraction isn't a choice, we stop worrying about whether or not they are getting married to each other. It isn't that we will seal them in the temples (because we don't believe that their eternal future will exist in that form). But we can perhaps move beyond where we are are now to recognize that we can let it be sorted out later. Clearly the Church has already experienced major shifts in their view. We no longer view SSA as an illness that can be corrected through the proper procedures (and we now teach against attempting this). We no longer view SSA as a choice and by extension as sinful (and we have plenty of statement now to that effect - even if some here in this thread refuse to recognize them). Perhaps someday we may return to the idea that homosexual relations are a sin just like heterosexual relations outside the bounds of marriage and just leave it at that. Marriage for time (but not eternity) with the understanding that it "can be worked out in the eternities by an infinitely wise God." And let's not forget that an infinite atonement covers a great deal. If it can save a child soldier who has committed terrible atrocities, it can certainly save someone who acts on the SSA that God gave them.

 

So let's continue to disagree.

Not sure I understand you on the part I have bolded above.

 

Are you suggesting that the Church will one day approve of homosexual relations within a so-called "marriage," even though it rejects the idea that such a union will continue into the eternities? (If so, I can't see the Church's stance ever changing in that regard from what it is now.)

 

Or are you suggesting that the Church will "return" to the idea that homosexual relations are sinful. Period. ? If so, I don't understand your use of the verb "return," as the Church has never departed from this stance.

[Scott Lloyd]

 

The PotF says: "Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose."

 

I'll be honest, I'm not sure if I accept such a position-- at least not when based on how we understand gender on a biological mortal level. It may be completely true, or it may be true in a sense that is different than they way we would currently understand such a statement, or it could just be an erroneous.

 

In 1909 the FP put forth "The Origin of Man" which, in part, said: "It is held by some that Adam was not the first man upon this earth and that the original human being was a development from lower orders of the animal creation. These, however, are the theories of men. The word of the Lord declared that Adam was 'the first man of all men' (Moses 1:34), and we are therefore in duty bound to regard him as the primal parent of our race."

 

While race is a not strictly a biological construct, I'm not sure if the FP meant to use the word in the common sense or not. I don't accept that a 6000 year-old Adam was the first "man" from a biological standpoint. So, from my position, either the FP was wrong, or the statment is true in a sense that is different than they way most people would understand the statement.

 

I think there is so much more going on with genders/spirits/eternal families/sealings/divinization, etc.-- stuff that we can't possibly image-- that it doesn't bother me if some of our ideas are a bit off or just plain wrong (and, quite frankly, I think this gets to heart of some other confusing/tough issues like Polygamy & Polyandry). From a pragmatic position, however, I have empathy for our SSA brothers and sisters and I'm grateful that I don't carry that cross (although I carry a different cross). I think Kevin C. made some good points about the crosses that can arise in any relationship.

 

I don't have any answers but I do honestly believe that the Brethren have genuine love and empathy for SSA individuals and earnestly seek the Lord's direction in knowing how to ease the pain of those who struggle (or what policies to keep/change, or what further revelation need be given on the topic). My job is to show Christ-like love for all God's children and to pray for the Brethren that they will be guided by God's will.

It's hard to attach a meaning to the wording in the family proclamation other than that gender pre-dated mortality.

 

And, believing the proclamation to be inspired, I am not open to the notion that it is in error. I place it on the same level as other landmark declarations such as the 1916 document "The Father and the Son: a Doctrinal Exposition by the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles," which, in nearly 100 years, has never been rescinded, repudiated or altered in any way.

 

Indeed, I hope and look forward to the day "The Family: a Proclamation to the World" is canonized as scripture.

Edited April 8, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[USU78]

Seems that applies more to you than to me.

 

So . . . address the CFRs I left for you, since implicit in all of your communications on this subject, both in this thread and elsewhere, is an acceptance of all of the 10 items I listed above.

 

How about just tackling the statistical association between homosexuality and male on male pederasty?  Should be easy to support the political cleaving of the one from the other.

[Scott Lloyd]

I, personally, have determined not to discriminate on the bases of people beliefs and actions in relation to the issue of SSM. I still shop at Amazon, and use Mosilla Firefox and MIcrosoft and Adobe and T-Mobil products even though they have publicly and financially supported SSM contrary to my beliefs.

 

And, while that is what I have decided, I respect the right of others to choose otherwise.

 

If people do not wish to eat at Chick-fil-a because its owner has donated in support of Prop 8, to me this is their private business choice, just as it is mine to ramp up my patronage in response to the boycott.

 

Likewise, if a business owner objects, on religious grounds, to catering or photographing an event they find objectionable, to me, they ought to have that free choice.

 

And, if a business decides to hire only those people who share their political viewpoint, to me that also ought to be their right..

 

In short, while I may choose to do things in a business way I think best and right, I am not going to use the government to preventing others from acting in a business way as they think best--which is ironic since advocates of SMM falsely assume that my position uses the government to force my religious beliefs onto others (it doesn't, but on a secular basis it merely retains the status quo in state endorsements), and yet they are using the government to force their beliefs onto religion.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Supporting a business despite disagreeing with its principals on political issues such as same sex marriage is one thing. Supporting them after they have fired people for having political positions they don't like is quite another.

 

I am currently evaluating my continued use of Firefox which, currently, is my web browser of choice.

[Stone holm]

The crux of the problem is how do we hate the sin, but love the sinner.

Crux of the problem is that platitude doesn't really work in the real world, beat we can manage is hate the sin and try to tolerate the sinner. Which is what Church policy is trying to achieve right now, with a little success. But it's going to take awhile to overcome certain other cultural platitudes like "first we tolerate, then we condone, and then we embrace " . What a confused mess we make of things with platitudes to justify just about anything.

[MAsh]

It's hard to attach any other meaning to the wording in the family proclamation other than that gender pre-dated mortality.

 

And, believing the proclamation to be inspired, I am not open to the notion that it is in error.

 

I believe it is inspired as well and I struggle with this fact and the wording of this particluar sentence on gender. It may be 100% accurate. Even if it is, however, as Ben pointed out, there are apparently (at times) synchronization problems between biology and spirit. We, unavoidable, understand gender according to our mortal world, but I just wonder (for many reasons including SSA) if there is more to gender (on an eternal scale) than what we preceive.

[USU78]

Crux of the problem is that platitude doesn't really work in the real world, beat we can manage is hate the sin and try to tolerate the sinner. Which is what Church policy is trying to achieve right now, with a little success. But it's going to take awhile to overcome certain other cultural platitudes like "first we tolerate, then we condone, and then we embrace " . What a confused mess we make of things with platitudes to justify just about anything.

 

Especially when the "sinner" reacts so loudly and, at times, violently to being referred to as a sinner.

[Scott Lloyd]

Crux of the problem is that platitude doesn't really work in the real world, beat we can manage is hate the sin and try to tolerate the sinner. Which is what Church policy is trying to achieve right now, with a little success. But it's going to take awhile to overcome certain other cultural platitudes like "first we tolerate, then we condone, and then we embrace " . What a confused mess we make of things with platitudes to justify just about anything.

I don't concede that these expressions don't work in the real world. Many, many people manage to hate the sin while loving the sinner. Moreover, I do believe the Church already has achieved that.

 

The "first tolerate, then accept and then embrace" is something I have seen over and over again. I have seen it on a general societal level within my lifetime with regard to sexual immorality. There was sexual immorality in society at the time I was growing up, but it was either kept secret or widely condemned as indecent. Not so much today.

 

With your dismissive attitude and no substantive support for your assertions, you are committing the very error you accuse others of doing in expressing what you condemn as "platitudes."

Edited April 8, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[wenglund]

Supporting a business despite disagreeing with its principals on political issues such as same sex marriage is one thing. Supporting them after they have fired people for having political positions they don't like is quite another.

 

I am currently evaluating my continued use of Firefox which, currently, is my web browser of choice.

 

I agree that there is a level distinction between the two, and I had also seriously considered un-installing Firefox (which is also my default browser of choice), but decided against it on principle (my market choices tend to be based on the value propositions of the product and services being offered rather than the political posturing of the company offering the products and services, though I would NOT invest in Mozilla because their politicized employment tactics are asinine and contra good business management) and for consistency sake, though I can respect if others choose otherwise. It is enough for me to join in on the mounting public condemnation of Mozilla's actions.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Stone holm]

Especially when the "sinner" reacts so loudly and, at times, violently to being referred to as a sinner.

 

Yeah, that is especially a problem when the sin and the sinner are so thoroughly entwined that they are identified by their desire to sin.  This is why the platitude just doesn't work in this case, because the homosexual nearly by definition is going to fall into the classification of sinner.  So they are nearly always going to be judged as a moral deviant or inferior.  Which is why, I pragmatically said earlier in this thread, or perhaps another, that the best advice to be given a person with SSA who intends to obey the law of chastity to stay thoroughly in the closet and lock the closet door because if she or he ever comes out, he or she will never be able to get rid of the taint in the eyes of many Mormons.

[Danzo]

Crux of the problem is that platitude doesn't really work in the real world, 

 

Speak for yourself.

[wenglund]

I believe it is inspired as well and I struggle with this fact and the wording of this particluar sentence on gender. It may be 100% accurate. Even if it is, however, as Ben pointed out, there are apparently (at times) synchronization problems between biology and spirit. We, unavoidable, understand gender according to our mortal world, but I just wonder (for many reasons including SSA) if there is more to gender (on an eternal scale) than what we preceive.

 

If there is "more to gender than we perceive," I suspect it is tied to priesthoods (see the other thread), and more particularly it may further underscore the glorious and complementary differences between men and women--which is something that homosexuality tends to blur.

 

So, while I agree with your general sentiment, I view it as working away from the popular trend regarding homosexuality. But, to each their own.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited April 8, 2014 by wenglund

[Stone holm]

I don't concede that these expressions don't work in the real world. Many, many people manage to hate the sin while loving the sinner. Moreover, I do believe the Church already has achieved that.

 

The "first tolerate, then accept and then embrace" is something I have seen over and over again. I have seen on a general societal level within my lifetime with regard to sexual immorality.

 

With your dismissive attitude and no substantive support for your assertions, you are committing the very error you accuse others of doing in expressing what you condemn as "platitudes."

 

Oh come on Scott -- look at what USU78 posted almost immediately thereafter, I don't blame USU78 its the normal reaction.  There may come a day when it will work, but really it doesn't right now in the Church.  That isn't being dismissive, its reality.  When we have people preaching the second platitude from the pulpit, there is just not really a lot of hope.  Sure there are some true Saints amongst us, but how many members would trust their kids around an openly gay member living the law of chastity (whatever the heck "openly gay" means in that connection) -- the tendency is to brand gays with all kinds of other labels automaticatically in the Church.  If not, then why on earth would we support a ban on openly gay adults being in BSA leadership positions.  Recognition of reality isn't being dismissive, its being real.

[Scott Lloyd]

I believe it is inspired as well and I struggle with this fact and the wording of this particluar sentence on gender. It may be 100% accurate. Even if it is, however, as Ben pointed out, there are apparently (at times) synchronization problems between biology and spirit. We, unavoidable, understand gender according to our mortal world, but I just wonder (for many reasons including SSA) if there is more to gender (on an eternal scale) than what we preceive.

It's not too difficult for me to conceive that gender confusion or ambiguity or whatever you choose to call it is just one more of the afflictions attendant to mortality -- some of which are even present in the womb before birth -- that will be removed in the resurrection.

 

"Not so much as a hair of their heads" etc. I take that very seriously, and I draw assurance from it.

Edited April 8, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

Oh come on Scott -- look at what USU78 posted almost immediately thereafter, I don't blame USU78 its the normal reaction.  There may come a day when it will work, but really it doesn't right now in the Church.  That isn't being dismissive, its reality.  When we have people preaching the second platitude from the pulpit, there is just not really a lot of hope.  Sure there are some true Saints amongst us, but how many members would trust their kids around an openly gay member living the law of chastity (whatever the heck "openly gay" means in that connection) -- the tendency is to brand gays with all kinds of other labels automaticatically in the Church.  If not, then why on earth would we support a ban on openly gay adults being in BSA leadership positions.  Recognition of reality isn't being dismissive, its being real.

Being at the same time loving and careful around certain individuals is entailed as being wise as serpents yet harmless as doves.

 

But you will probably dismiss that allusion to the words of Christ as being a "platitude."

 

Edited to add:

 

I don't disagree with what USU78 posted. Some people, because of their behavior, are more difficult to love than others. That doesn't mean people are incapable of it or that it doesn't happen now in the Church.

Edited April 8, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

 It is enough for me to join in on the mounting public condemnation of Mozilla's actions.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

That by and far, I think is far more effective than a boycott.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Crux of the problem is that platitude doesn't really work in the real world, beat we can manage is hate the sin and try to tolerate the sinner. Which is what Church policy is trying to achieve right now, with a little success. But it's going to take awhile to overcome certain other cultural platitudes like "first we tolerate, then we condone, and then we embrace " . What a confused mess we make of things with platitudes to justify just about anything.

Rofl you should know that word well as that is all you guys ever do is offer meaningless platitudes. "its our differences that unite us". Or the equally useless " Yes, we can." (Yeah I get it is a slogan more than a platitude but what ever)

 

What a joke.

Edited April 8, 2014 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[USU78]

Yeah, that is especially a problem when the sin and the sinner are so thoroughly entwined that they are identified by their desire to sin.  This is why the platitude just doesn't work in this case, because the homosexual nearly by definition is going to fall into the classification of sinner.  So they are nearly always going to be judged as a moral deviant or inferior.  Which is why, I pragmatically said earlier in this thread, or perhaps another, that the best advice to be given a person with SSA who intends to obey the law of chastity to stay thoroughly in the closet and lock the closet door because if she or he ever comes out, he or she will never be able to get rid of the taint in the eyes of many Mormons.

 

Huh?  Don't see how you navigated from A to B here.  Please to enlighten.

[Scott Lloyd]

Huh?  Don't see how you navigated from A to B here.  Please to enlighten.

Seemed incongruous to me too,

[Teancum]

So . . . address the CFRs I left for you, since implicit in all of your communications on this subject, both in this thread and elsewhere, is an acceptance of all of the 10 items I listed above.

 

How about just tackling the statistical association between homosexuality and male on male pederasty?  Should be easy to support the political cleaving of the one from the other.

 

 

I will pass. I have read argument on both sides of the issue.  Neither seem conclusive.

[EllenMaksoud]

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.

I just do not know what to do about how the church treats GBLT folk. And, I know that they consider me to be Gay despite all the medical documentation I have given, much of it paid for by them, approaching $1000.

 

So far for me, the consequences have meant no TR, and no Patriarchial Blessing. I serve a lot, a lot. According to others, more than anyone in our ward. This is not an issue because I am retired and financially taken care of. And, it is the admonishment of Heavenly Father and of Jesus the Christ that we love and serve one another.

 

I do know however, if the church is doing wrong that they will pay for it. If so, I will do my utmost not to stand at the curb and cheer at their punishment.

[Teancum]

We can be sure that according to our religious doctrine God objects to homosexual unions.  If youbelieve the scriptures and the words of the prophets then it's pretty clear God objects.

If you don't believe the scriptures and the words of the prophets then I suppose it really doesn't matter to you anyway.

 

But scripturally and doctrinally, homosexual unions are wrong, both from a morality standpoint and from an eternal law standpoint (although I suppose that the violation of eternal law is what makes it immoral).

 

 

If we are so finite that we cannot understand why God is opposed to how can we trust that those who wrote the scripture that you think says God objects to homosexual unions?  How are we to understand anything from God if his ways are so far above us that we cannot understand, yet aren't we supposes to know God to gain enternal life?  It seems the "we are finite and cannot understand" is used only in favor of religion not the other way around.

[Teancum]

Supporting a business despite disagreeing with its principals on political issues such as same sex marriage is one thing. Supporting them after they have fired people for having political positions they don't like is quite another.

 

I am currently evaluating my continued use of Firefox which, currently, is my web browser of choice.

 

 

We agree on this.

[JLHPROF]

If we are so finite that we cannot understand why God is opposed to how can we trust that those who wrote the scripture that you think says God objects to homosexual unions?  How are we to understand anything from God if his ways are so far above us that we cannot understand, yet aren't we supposes to know God to gain enternal life?  It seems the "we are finite and cannot understand" is used only in favor of religion not the other way around.

 

I've never believed we are "so finite we cannot understand".  I think that is a foolish statement not in keeping with scripture.  Yes there are aspects to God we cannot understand, but his will for us is not one of them.  He has spoken to man and that is good enough for me.

[USU78]

I will pass. I have read argument on both sides of the issue. Neither seem conclusive.

So ... you base your beliefs in this regard on no proof and not much evidence