My Logical Opposition To Our Policies With Homosexuality

[Teancum]

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.

 

 

1:  How do you know for certian hompsexuality is a condition of mortality? Is heterosexuality just a condition of mortality?  Your opening comment is simply an a priori assumption.   You certainly could be wrong. 

 

2:  Heterosexuals can chose to marry and thus are not mandated a life of celibacy.  Not so for homosexuals who want to remaing in good standing. They cannot even have a relationship with someone that is a chaste relationship that consisted of say holding hands, hugging and kissing.  I love it when someone cops the attitude of "Oh well we all have crosses to bear, weaknessses, etc."  Perhaps it is true we all have weaknesses.  However the one you are simply dismissing with the typical party line is one you likely can in no way comprehend.

[Kevin Christensen]

Given the assumption that sexual fulfillment is the most important thing in life, and that to be denied or frustrated in complete sexual fulfillment is to be horribly, and uncharitably and unjustifiably oppressed, what ought the LDS policy ought to be when something happens to the attraction within a marriage? Say, a husband notices that he is a person who is attracted to younger women, or a different shade or height, or temperament? Suppose, in a completely unrealistic fantasy/science fiction situation, that a man somehow finds himself in a relationship with an old woman when years before he had cheerfully committed to a young woman? What about weight gain or loss? What about the effects of illness in a partner? What if one partner's desire and responsiveness changes? Say, what if a partner begins to recall sexual abuse, and no longer wants to be touched. What if one partner lacks the other's newly changed, or unchanged curiosity or taste? What if one partner meets someone else who happens to be more attractive to them than their marriage partner? What if sexual addiction is a factor in one or the other partner's behavior? And supposing, just supposing, this sort of thing happens to a gay couple in a Utopian, tolerant, accepting society? What if the magic goes away, the spark dies, if the geiger counter of their desire starts clicking in different directions? What if marriage, whose denial seemed the ultimate in oppression, when the ordinary course of life turns that wonderful and noble institution into an intolerable bondage? What happens to the ideal of commitment then?

What if tolerance and acceptance doesn't address or define the whole problem? What if the notion of tolerance and acceptance is simply a means of rhetorical focus, designed to exclude as much as it brings into consideration? What if marriage is about something more important than tolerance and sexual fulfillment?

Just asking.

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

Edited April 7, 2014 by Kevin Christensen

[webbles]

- Would more people choose being gay?

I would answer yes to this question.  Children are extremely impressionable.  When I was young, I had no idea what my sexual orientation was.  I probably could have gone either way.  There might not be a lot of children that can choose or there might be a lot.  We don't know right now but as same sex marriage becomes more accepted and fashionable, we'll find out.

 

Also, think about people that have sexual attractions that are repugnant to society.  There are probably some that are born that way.  They can't change who they are and they have to either be celibate their entire life, choose a distatesful marriage or be expelled from society.  Homosexuals were once in this category and they are slowly/quickly becoming less repugnant to society.  How do you answer your questions for these individuals?

[Teancum]

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

 

 

You did not ask me but I will respond. I  say good for them if it is what they want and what they feel is right for them.  So what?

[smac97]

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

I think SSA can result from a combination of "born that way" inclinations, environmental factors/influences, and personal choices/behaviors.

-  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.

Well, no. The Church's website, mormonsandgays.org, states: "The attraction itself is not a sin, but acting on it is. Even though individuals do not choose to have such attractions, they do choose how to respond to them."

So the "non-choice" is not a sin, but acting on it is, and is therefore "unacceptable to God." I think distinguishing between the attraction and acting on the attraction is important, particularly when discussing this issue in the context of what is acceptable 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.

The atonement is about reconciliation. It is about saving us from sin.

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

Yep. Just like heterosexual singles, divorced people, widowed people, and so on. Celibacy outside of marriage is God's commandment for all of His children. Folks with SSA don't get a special exemption from the Law of Chastity just because they have SSA.

-  If this was required by heterosexual LDS,

It is required of heterosexual Latter-day Saints. We cannot pretend that it is not, or that heterosexuals are somehow privileged in this regard.

I am doubtful that any significant % of LDS would accept such direction.

Of course we do. There are many, many observant Latter-day Saints who live lives of celibacy.

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.

Well, that's disappointing. I truly hope you can find a way to be more willing to obey God's commandments. That is what we're talking about, after all.

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

And yet many celibate Latter-day Saints remain devoted to the Restored Gospel. It is an entirely possible thing to do for someone who is willing to obey God's commandments.

-  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.

Many unmarried people in the Church (never married, widowed, divorced, etc.) are not in that circumstance by choice. But they choose to obey the Law of Chastity anyway. People with SSA are asked to do the same.

With That said

 

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

First, CFR on that statistic.

Second, yes, we should expect people with SSA to stay in the Church. They are not animals. They are children of God. They have the gift of agency. They are not (or need not be) slaves to sexual desires. To suggest otherwise is to relegate people with SSA to a lesser standard than heterosexuals. The soft bigotry of low expectations.

Third, repentance is always possible, and the Atonement is an amazing thing.

-  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

Yes, it is fair. It is not "us" doing the asking. It is God that has instituted the Law of Chastity. Since God is perfect and just, anything He asks of us is, by definition, "fair."

Again, you seem to have a low opinion of people with SSA. I do not believe they are a category of people who are lesser, who are not capable of governing themselves according to God's laws. I acknowledge that people with SSA may have a hard time adhering to the commandments of God when society at large is telling them to ignore those commandments. I also acknowledge that lifelong celibacy can be difficult, particularly in the highly sexualized world we now live in. Still, people can and do choose to obey God even when it is 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?

Again, you err in suggesting that "we" require celibacy. "We" don't require it. God does. I cannot overemphasize the importance of this point.

Also, you now seem to be arguing for some sort of special privilege for people with SSA, one which excuses them from adhering to the Law of Chastity which is binding on all of us.

I cannot choose to see people with SSA as lessers, as animalistic, as lacking in free will. So I cannot agree to your implication.

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.

You are proposing that we create a special privilege for people with SSA simply because they have SSA. That's not right, nor "fair." By your reasoning, widowed members should likewise be excused from the Law of Chastity. And singles who have searched for but not found a suitable companion. And persons whose spouses have divorced.

We cannot carve out a special exemption to the Law of Chastity for people with SSA. To do so is to denigrate them and treat them as less than the children of God we know them to be.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Bob Crockett]

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

Indeed. There are many evangelical ministries to homosexuals staffed by homosexuals who have repented and turned to Jesus. I've studied some of their work.

 

You did not ask me but I will respond. I say good for them if it is what they want and what they feel is right for them. So what?

 

And thus, for some, change is evident.   Just as change is evident in many of the lives affected by the missionaries' message.

 

I'm an example of change.  I was a life-long Democrat who opposed Proposition 8 until the Church asked me to reconsider and donate, and I did willingly.

Edited April 6, 2014 by Bob Crockett

[Teancum]

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.

 

 

Assumimg the LDS leaders have this one right.

[Deborah]

However the one you are simply dismissing with the typical party line is one you likely can in no way comprehend.

 

I in fact can comprehend. I have a lovely daughter who has struggled with SSA for years. She finally chose not to live alone and has a wonderful best friend and life partner. However, she chose understanding her choice and that one day she will have to pay the price for such a choice but she is willing to do it. It is always a choice.

[JLHPROF]

Assumimg the LDS leaders have this one right.

 

How could they not?

The first commandment God gave in marriage was to "multiply and replenish the earth".  How can we honestly claim that God is equally in favor of unions not designed with this purpose in mind?  (Different from fertility issues which are medical - really hate when that comparison is used to promote religious SSM).

 

The family is eternal.  The blessings of exaltation are eternal increase.  God's very work and glory is to bring to pass eternal life and exaltation of his children.  The commandment to multiply and replenish is eternal in nature (even God does it).  And it goes on, and on.

SSM is out of order, not just because of "morality" issues, but because it's against the eternal order and eternal design.  It simply isn't in the plan.

 

Now why people are born or created with SSA, I don't know.  I really don't.  But I don't believe that the fact of their existence overrules the nature of the very universe.

[Teancum]

I in fact can comprehend. I have a lovely daughter who has struggled with SSA for years. She finally chose not to live alone and has a wonderful best friend and life partner. However, she chose understanding her choice and that one day she will have to pay the price for such a choice but she is willing to do it. It is always a choice.

 

 

You may have empathy but you cannot comprehend nor can I.  Until you have the specific challange that your daughter has you do not know how it feels to be told you can never have a loving, caring and intimate relationship with someone you love if you want the Mormon church to accept you.  I think your daughter would be offended for you to call it a struggle that she has SSA.  She was made that way by the God you claim to worship.  Does she say you struggle with OSA? 

[Teancum]

How could they not?

The first commandment God gave in marriage was to "multiply and replenish the earth".  How can we honestly claim that God is equally in favor of unions not designed with this purpose in mind?  (Different from fertility issues which are medical - really hate when that comparison is used to promote religious SSM).

 

The family is eternal.  The blessings of exaltation are eternal increase.  God's very work and glory is to bring to pass eternal life and exaltation of his children.  The commandment to multiply and replenish is eternal in nature (even God does it).  And it goes on, and on.

SSM is out of order, not just because of "morality" issues, but because it's against the eternal order and eternal design.  It simply isn't in the plan.

 

Now why people are born or created with SSA, I don't know.  I really don't.  But I don't believe that the fact of their existence overrules the nature of the very universe.

 

 

Oh how could they?  Well how could other LDS leaders get other things wrong that they got wrong like black's and the priesthood, plural marriage enduring forever or the Church being in a state of apostacy, Adam God and so on.  The track record is littered with errors and mistakes.

[Scott Lloyd]

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.

Elders Lance B. Wickman and Dallin H. Oaks here articulate the doctrine of the Church on this subject:

 

ELDER WICKMAN: One question that might be asked by somebody who is struggling with same-gender attraction is, “Is this something I’m stuck with forever? What bearing does this have on eternal life? If I can somehow make it through this life, when I appear on the other side, what will I be like?”

Gratefully, the answer is that same-gender attraction did not exist in the pre-earth life and neither will it exist in the next life. It is a circumstance that for whatever reason or reasons seems to apply right now in mortality, in this nano-second of our eternal existence.

The good news for somebody who is struggling with same-gender attraction is this: 1) It is that ‘I’m not stuck with it forever.’ It’s just now. Admittedly, for each one of us, it’s hard to look beyond the ‘now’ sometimes. But nonetheless, if you see mortality as now, it’s only during this season. 2) If I can keep myself worthy here, if I can be true to gospel commandments, if I can keep covenants that I have made, the blessings of exaltation and eternal life that Heavenly Father holds out to all of His children apply to me. Every blessing — including eternal marriage — is and will be mine in due course.

ELDER OAKS: Let me just add a thought to that. There is no fullness of joy in the next life without a family unit, including a husband, a wife, and posterity. Further, men are that they might have joy. In the eternal perspective, same-gender activity will only bring sorrow and grief and the loss of eternal opportunities.

 

Between you and them, I choose to rely on them for guidance as to the doctrine and teachings of the Church.

[Tacenda]

I think SSA can result from a combination of "born that way" inclinations, environmental factors/influences, and personal choices/behaviors.

Well, no. The Church's website, mormonsandgays.org, states: "The attraction itself is not a sin, but acting on it is. Even though individuals do not choose to have such attractions, they do choose how to respond to them."

So the "non-choice" is not a sin, but acting on it is, and is therefore "unacceptable to God." I think distinguishing between the attraction and acting on the attraction is important, particularly when discussing this issue in the context of what is acceptable to God.

The atonement is about reconciliation. It is about saving us from sin.

Yep. Just like heterosexual singles, divorced people, widowed people, and so on. Celibacy outside of marriage is God's commandment for all of His children. Folks with SSA don't get a special exemption from the Law of Chastity just because they have SSA.

It is required of heterosexual Latter-day Saints. We cannot pretend that it is not, or that heterosexuals are somehow privileged in this regard.

Of course we do. There are many, many observant Latter-day Saints who live lives of celibacy.

Well, that's disappointing. I truly hope you can find a way to be more willing to obey God's commandments. That is what we're talking about, after all.

And yet many celibate Latter-day Saints remain devoted to the Restored Gospel. It is an entirely possible thing to do for someone who is willing to obey God's commandments.

Many unmarried people in the Church (never married, widowed, divorced, etc.) are not in that circumstance by choice. But they choose to obey the Law of Chastity anyway. People with SSA are asked to do the same.

First, CFR on that statistic.

Second, yes, we should expect people with SSA to stay in the Church. They are not animals. They are children of God. They have the gift of agency. They are not (or need not be) slaves to sexual desires. To suggest otherwise is to relegate people with SSA to a lesser standard than heterosexuals. The soft bigotry of low expectations.

Third, repentance is always possible, and the Atonement is an amazing thing.

Yes, it is fair. It is not "us" doing the asking. It is God that has instituted the Law of Chastity. Since God is perfect and just, anything He asks of us is, by definition, "fair."

Again, you seem to have a low opinion of people with SSA. I do not believe they are a category of people who are lesser, who are not capable of governing themselves according to God's laws. I acknowledge that people with SSA may have a hard time adhering to the commandments of God when society at large is telling them to ignore those commandments. I also acknowledge that lifelong celibacy can be difficult, particularly in the highly sexualized world we now live in. Still, people can and do choose to obey God even when it is difficult.

Again, you err in suggesting that "we" require celibacy. "We" don't require it. God does. I cannot overemphasize the importance of this point.

Also, you now seem to be arguing for some sort of special privilege for people with SSA, one which excuses them from adhering to the Law of Chastity which is binding on all of us.

I cannot choose to see people with SSA as lessers, as animalistic, as lacking in free will. So I cannot agree to your implication.

You are proposing that we create a special privilege for people with SSA simply because they have SSA. That's not right, nor "fair." By your reasoning, widowed members should likewise be excused from the Law of Chastity. And singles who have searched for but not found a suitable companion. And persons whose spouses have divorced.

We cannot carve out a special exemption to the Law of Chastity for people with SSA. To do so is to denigrate them and treat them as less than the children of God we know them to be.

Thanks,

-Smac

Within a marriage, I would think SSA aren't breaking the law of chastity.

[JLHPROF]

Oh how could they?  Well how could other LDS leaders get other things wrong that they got wrong like black's and the priesthood, plural marriage enduring forever or the Church being in a state of apostacy, Adam God and so on.  The track record is littered with errors and mistakes.

 

I don't see any of these as errors or mistakes.  Plural marriage and Adam-God were not mistakes or errors.  The Church being in Apostasy?  Not sure where you got that.

Even the priesthood ban (which we we have no certainty as to the origin) was resolved by further revelation from God.

The track record is littered with progression and learning, but very few actual errors, although as Elder Uchtdorf pointed out, there are some on occasion.

 

But as far as SS relationships - this is not an issue of Church interpretation.  The scriptures are beautifully clear on marriage, its purpose and structure.  And SSM cannot fit into either the purpose or the structure.

[stemelbow]

How could they not?

The first commandment God gave in marriage was to "multiply and replenish the earth".  How can we honestly claim that God is equally in favor of unions not designed with this purpose in mind?  (Different from fertility issues which are medical - really hate when that comparison is used to promote religious SSM).

 

Because obviously not all heterosexual unions multiply and replenish the earth.  Many are unable to.  There are always exceptions in this world, as it turns out.

[Deborah]

 I think your daughter would be offended for you to call it a struggle that she has SSA.  She was made that way by the God you claim to worship.  Does she say you struggle with OSA? 

 

Actually no. She and I have discussed this. She is the one who recognizes that she did not choose to feel this way and it has been a struggle for her to do what she knows is right; she still struggles with mixed feelings, loving the church but knowing she has chosen a lifestyle contrary to it's teaching.

[JLHPROF]

Because obviously not all heterosexual unions multiply and replenish the earth.  Many are unable to.  There are always exceptions in this world, as it turns out.

I say again, this is not a legitimate comparison.  One is a temporal medical issue, but the eternal outlook is the same - posterity, increase, and eternal lives.

The other is against the order of the universe - it specifically prevents the continuing of life, and whatever prevents life/progression is fallen.

[Scott Lloyd]

Within a marriage, I would think SSA aren't breaking the law of chastity.

The Lord does not recognize same sex unions as marriage, and thus, any homosexual behavior -- even if by the government's definition it has occurred within a marriage --  is breaking the law of chastity.

Edited April 6, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[ERMD]

Within a marriage, I would think SSA aren't breaking the law of chastity.

I case you missed it, the Lord considers marriage as a union of man and woman.

If scripture and current teachings are not clear to you, consider the teachings of the temple. They are all in agreement.

[california boy]

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

If it works for them, great.  We all have one life.  We all have the agency to choose how to live that life.

[california boy]

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.

Never said they were.  And I agree with you.  They probably are not.  But not everyone who is in the Celestial Kingdom is married. Only in the highest degree.  I personally have no interest in marrying a woman for eternity.  

[Scott Lloyd]

Never said they were.  And I agree with you.  They probably are not.  But not everyone who is in the Celestial Kingdom is married. Only in the highest degree.  I personally have no interest in marrying a woman for eternity.  

Repeating the quote from Elder Oaks in post on the last page:

 

ELDER OAKS: Let me just add a thought to that. There is no fullness of joy in the next life without a family unit, including a husband, a wife, and posterity. Further, men are that they might have joy. In the eternal perspective, same-gender activity will only bring sorrow and grief and the loss of eternal opportunities.

 

[Deborah]

Never said they were.  And I agree with you.  They probably are not.  But not everyone who is in the Celestial Kingdom is married. Only in the highest degree.  I personally have no interest in marrying a woman for eternity.  

 

You are quite right. But even so a Celestial being will not have any desires contrary to the law of a Celestial Kingdom, whatever his feelings may be in this life.

[Teancum]

Actually no. She and I have discussed this. She is the one who recognizes that she did not choose to feel this way and it has been a struggle for her to do what she knows is right; she still struggles with mixed feelings, loving the church but knowing she has chosen a lifestyle contrary to it's teaching.

 

 

Welll certainly since you live this you know better than I.  My hope is your daughter can accept who she is and that if there is a God she was made this way by that God and need not be burdened with artificial man made guilt.

[california boy]

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.

Well obviously you are not gay.  I was married for 25 years.  You can't say I didn't try.  As soon as my children were raised, something I felt I had a responsibility to do, our marriage ended.  It was actually my wife that innitiated the divorce.  She knew didn't work.  We are still good friends, but not married.

 

It seems like most of these post desperately want the church to work for gay members.  The stone cold fact is, it rarely does.  And that is ok I guess.  The objective of the church is not to save everyone.  I sometimes wonder why Mormons are just not more honest about this subject.  The statement that I think is honest, is that all gay members are welcome to stay in the church on condition of celibacy.  We don't treat your very human relationships the same as straight members.  Get over it.  If you can, then join us.  If you can't then we wish you well.