My Logical Opposition To Our Policies With Homosexuality

[Scott Lloyd]

 You equate "our" or the "LDS Church" as God's position. I understand that. I used to as well. I no longer comprehensively accept that and I think I base it on reasonable evidences.  I do think the LDS Church gets some things right and some things wrong.   I guess since the majority of the posters here think and believe the LDS Church=God's will it is acceptable to state it as such.  But in discussings such things with others who rightfully don't hold this position, which as you know is  many times the majority of most human beings, it does not do much to foster a discussion when such things are stated as fact.

Our position with regard to the divinity of the Church is what it is, and there is nothing to be gained from diluting or soft-peddling it.

[Scott Lloyd]

So you are of the school of thought which holds that the Bible contains every word ever uttered by Christ? That doesn't seem very reasonable.

 

Moreover, it is very unBiblical.

 

The apostle John wrote that if all the things that Jesus said and did had been written down, he supposed that the world itself could not contain the books that should be written.

[ERayR]

Moreover, it is very unBiblical.

 

The apostle John wrote that if all the things that Jesus said and did had been written down, he supposed that the world itself could not contain the books that should be written.

 

He was probably verry right..  Just look at what has been written with what little we have.

[Teancum]

Our position with regard to the divinity of the Church is what it is, and there is nothing to be gained from diluting or soft-peddling it.

 

So expect to be opposed then. 

[Scott Lloyd]

So expect to be opposed then. 

Expecting it is one thing. Leaving  such opposition unchallenged is quite another.

 

In fact, the clash itself may in the long run be a positive thing for the Church.

 

Brigham Young is quoted as saying, "Every time you kick “Mormonism” you kick it upstairs; you never kick it downstairs. The Lord Almighty so orders it"

Edited April 6, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[CMZ]

But in discussings such things with others who rightfully don't hold this position, which as you know is  many times the majority of most human beings, it does not do much to foster a discussion when such things are stated as fact.

 

So our beliefs should change to what the majority accepts?

[Teancum]

Expecting it is one thing. Leaving  such opposition unchallenged is quite another.

 

In fact, the clash itself may in the long run be a positive thing for the Church.

 

Brigham Young is quoted as saying, "Every time you kick “Mormonism” you kick it upstairs; you never kick it downstairs. The Lord Almighty so orders it"

 

 

The clash may or may not be positive. It does not seem that is has been positive at least in the past 10-15 years. It seems there is more disaffection, less converts and poorer retention. The church struggles to keep many of the 20-35 year old crowd and so on.

[wenglund]

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.

 

It is rather simple, actually, The purpose of the Church/gospel is to bring people to Christ and enable them to progress so as to become like him, towards a fullness of joy and holiness.

 

The purpose of the Church is NOT necessarily to be "fair" or "equal" or satisfy our sexual proclivities (whether inborn or not) or to conform to the whims of popular culture.

 

Accordingly, those who wish to attain the Church's purposes, have good reason to stay in the Church and to abide the will of God as revealed through the Church. And, those who do not wish to attain the Church's purposes, or who prioritize the Church's purposes below their own will and desires, have good reason to leave the Church--whether it be in regards to same-sex attractions or the need for pristine history or expectations of a pain and suffering-free mortal existence, etc.. Each to their own choice.

 

In short, it is all about choosing where you want to go and what you want to make of yourselves in this life and beyond. Different roads lead to different destinations. Logically, taking the road to satisfaction of homosexual inclinations and pursuit of homosexual relationships, regardless whether those acts are socially normalized and legally defined the same as heterosexual relationship, or even catered to somewhat by religions, will not lead to the same end as the road set forth by God to his Church, as intimated somewhat in the Proclimation on the Family. Pretending otherwise will not change this.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Scott Lloyd]

The clash may or may not be positive. It does not seem that is has been positive at least in the past 10-15 years. It seems there is more disaffection, less converts and poorer retention. The church struggles to keep many of the 20-35 year old crowd and so on.

To whatever extent that may be true, it is not self-evident that it is because the Church has refused to soft-peddle or dilute its message.

 

In fact, Nephi saw in vision that the Church of the Lamb of God would have a global presence but would be relatively few in numbers, this because of the influence of the church of the devil.

 

I fervently believe this prophecy is being fulfilled before our eyes.

Edited April 6, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

It is rather simple, actually, The purpose of the Church/gospel is to bring people to Christ and enable them to progress so as to become like him, towards a fullness of joy and holiness.

 

The purpose of the Church is NOT necessarily to be "fair" or "equal" or satisfy our sexual proclivities (whether inborn or not) or to conform to the whims of popular culture.

 

Accordingly, those who wish to attain the Church's purposes, have good reason to stay in the Church and to abide the will of God as revealed through the Church. And, those who do not wish to attain the Church's purposes, or who prioritize the Church's purposes below their own will and desires, have good reason to leave the Church--whether it be in regards to same-sex attractions or the need for pristine history or expectations of a pain and suffering-free mortal existence, etc.. Each to their own choice.

 

In short, it is all about choosing where you want to go and what you want to make of yourselves in this life and beyond. Different roads lead to different destinations. Logically, taking the road to satisfaction of homosexual inclinations and pursuit of homosexual relationships, regardless whether those acts are socially normalized and legally defined the same as heterosexual relationship, or even catered to somewhat by religions, will not lead to the same end as the road set forth by God to his Church, as intimated somewhat in the Proclimation on the Family. Pretending otherwise will not change this.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I agree.

 

And I'm struck by how well your post complements mine, which appears just below it.

 

The ancient prophet Joshua expressed it more succinctly than either of us:

 

And if it seem evil unto you to serve the Lord, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.

 

Edited April 6, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Teancum]

So our beliefs should change to what the majority accepts?

 

 

No I did not say that.  But expect people to challange you when you say whatever your belief is that is is because God says so. Others may argue no God does not say so or that your belief that God says one thing or another is not nor should be binding on them.  And others may argue there is no God at all so your position is nonsensical if it is based on what you claim is God revealed.

[canard78]

This thread is about "our policies with homosexuality." This discussion takes the LDS paradigm as a given.

Thanks,

-Smac

"Your" policies. Good description. Not God's though. Keep your cultural bias. It serves you well. As long as you and a majority of Mormons (sorry, members of the church of... Etc) hold on to this prejudice you'll likely be able to maintain the status quo.

[california boy]

God also has fornicating children. And adulterous children. By your reckoning, these must be no big deal.

But that reckoning is not compatible with the Restored Gospel.

So we are free to disregard the Law of Chastity as long as we treat others well?

That reckoning is not compatible with the Restored Gospel.

So you are of the school of thought which holds that the Bible contains every word ever uttered by Christ? That doesn't seem very reasonable.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

Fortunately how God judges each of us is not up to you.  It is up to God.  You are welcome to pick up a stone and throw it in my direction if you wish.  But somehow I just don't see the Savior judging in quite the same way.  

 

I would love to be a participant in the law of Chastity, but the church does not recognize gay marriage.  This position is not from a revelation from God, but from leaders assuming what they think God might want.  It is not just that Christ did not condemn homosexuality, but also the entire Book of Mormon as well as the D&C and Pearl of Great Price.  Nor in ALL of the communication with Joseph Smith did Christ feel the need to condemn homosexual couples who choose to spend their life together.  It is not like you are on really solid ground here.  Can you name ONE revelation from God about homosexuality? (I am not talking about one scripture, but rather one prophet who proclaimed a revelation from God on homosexuality.  There are plenty in the scriptures that are not God's words or even thoughts)  Is it treated the same as adultery and fornication?  Did Paul claim what he wrote in a letter to be from God?  Does every letter a prophet writes come from God?  If I am suppose to  center my entire life around what God wants me to do as a gay man, do I not deserve just ONE revelation from God about this?  Could He have a 5 minute meeting with the prophet and tell him what HE wants his gay children to do?  What will happen to us after we die?  

 

Look I totally realize that you are willing to take the opinion of church leaders on this subject.  And why wouldn't you?  You don't have to deal with this issue.  You can marry who you wish.  Your path has been clearly laid out by modern day revelation.  Mine has not.  I am not willing to "trust" those that are in charge, who happen to all be straight, and don't really have any skin in the game to issue what they think God could possibly say about this subject.  

 

So yes, I feel there is more important lessons to be learned on this earth life than who I am suppose to not fall in love with and share my life with.

[CV75]

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 think if you try to support your assumptions from things said in General Conference over the last 2 days, you would change a few of your assumptions.

 

The Atonement is an enabling and a strengthening power; Christ requires us to face nothing that He has not already suffered to overcome, even those things He has required which we might condemn as "impossible".

 

In otherwords, The Church has explained that God sees homosexuality as a deterrent to his children's salvation.

The Church has not explained that God sees homosexuality as a deterrent to his children's salvation; only that the willing refusal of His covenants is. Specific to sexuality, acting on sexual impulses outside of the covenants is a deterrent to his children's salvation.

[Scott Lloyd]

"Your" policies. Good description. Not God's though. Keep your cultural bias. It serves you well. As long as you and a majority of Mormons (sorry, members of the church of... Etc) hold on to this prejudice you'll likely be able to maintain the status quo.

They are ours only in the sense that we have chosen to embrace them. They are of divine origen.

 

By the way, it's OK to call members of the Church Mormons. I don't know why people have such a hard time grasping the difference between calling Church members Mormons and calling the Church the "Mormon Church."

[CMZ]

In short, it is all about choosing where you want to go and what you want to make of yourselves in this life and beyond. Different roads lead to different destinations. Logically, taking the road to satisfaction of homosexual inclinations and pursuit of homosexual relationships, regardless whether those acts are socially normalized and legally defined the same as heterosexual relationship, or even catered to somewhat by religions, will not lead to the same end as the road set forth by God to his Church

 

And this is the reason why the Church speaks out against homosexual behavior. It's not to be mean or to deny somebody loving companionship. It's because the end of that road is not the best possible end for somebody, and the Church wants each person to achieve the best possible outcome, even when there will be difficulties along the way.  I understand mortal trials, but I don't understand people putting their trials above gospel principles.

[Scott Lloyd]

Fortunately how God judges each of us is not up to you.  It is up to God.  You are welcome to pick up a stone and throw it in my direction if you wish.  But somehow I just don't see the Savior judging in quite the same way.  

 

Unseemly histrionics.

 

Smac has not manifested a disposition to throw a stone at you or anyone else. His behavior here has been civil and respectful.

 

And in affirming the position of the apostles and prophets, he is not engaging in unrighteous judgment.

[CMZ]

But expect people to challange [sic] you when you say whatever your belief is that is is because God says so. 

 

Don't worry. We're not surprised that we're being challenged on this.

[why me]

The clash may or may not be positive. It does not seem that is has been positive at least in the past 10-15 years. It seems there is more disaffection, less converts and poorer retention. The church struggles to keep many of the 20-35 year old crowd and so on.

I am not sure if this is true. But I do think that it is not easy being mormon these days. Too much to fight against. I think that it was easier in the past when the church did not stand out so much on moral issues as it does now. I don't think that the church of christ is a popularity contest. It should set a standard for the world to follow. And the church is doing a fine job in this regard. Bottom line: there was nothing bad in the advice that was given at general conference. In fact, it was quite good. Much of world would be better off if they followed it.

[why me]

Fortunately how God judges each of us is not up to you.  It is up to God.  You are welcome to pick up a stone and throw it in my direction if you wish.  But somehow I just don't see the Savior judging in quite the same way.  

I think that there was a conference talk about this and what exactly the savior meant by love. It seems that much of the christian world may believe that regardless of what we may do, the savior still forgives and loves us unconditionally. And yet, the bible verses are rather clear what deems his love. If we love jesus we keep his commandments. So, what happens if we do not keep his commandments?

Edited April 6, 2014 by why me

[strappinglad]

Is there an elephant in the room? If eternal increase is to be restricted to inhabitants of the highest degree of the Celestial Kingdom, then the rest of humanity will have no need of all this sex stuff and will likely be asexual servants with unconditional love and attraction to everyone. Of course I am quoting stappinglad 3:7

[BlueDreams]

These are the assumptions I agree with:

-  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

 

 

 

So I won't focus on this

 

These are the assumptions I differ in your line-up

-  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.

 

- A large chunk of LDS with SSA do wish for it to go away at first. Most of us do, who have something that seems in conflict with our own personal desires and what we figure God wants for us. Where I differ is that this is usually not the point many actively LDS people with SSA remain at. I have heard and read and talked to many who do not interact with their SSA in terms of struggle and something to despise. Rather they see it as a gift or inseperable to who they have become, which is empowered and more Christ-like. I also do not believe the church sees their SSA as unacceptable to God....not that it hasn't been taught, but that it's false doctrine that has been moved away from for years (though it can still be culturally ingrained) 

 

- The atonement is about change, yes. But the change that you're pointing to and that is often incorrectly assumed is that of the orientation. That is not the change Christ really cares about....it's external, temporal, and may or may not have place in the eternities. What He's concerned about changing is our hearts and souls to follow Him. Faith, charity, obedience, etc.....that's the change of the atonement. From what I've seen and heard, those that "overcome all" who have SSA may or may not feel a change in their sexuality in the here-and-now. It's not as pertinent as the change that has been wrought to their spirits.

  

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

 

- Choice is not simply about who will/won't be our partner. It's not even the most important choice we make (yeah, I just said that)

 

-  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

- I don't know what I'd do. I have my own challenge that comes with sexuality that I won't mention. I'm single. It makes it very very difficult to maintain the LoC (and yes plenty poo-poo it as being young and what not, but you'll have to take my word that this is above and beyond the norm and is often well out of my control). I used to only half joke that if I made it to 35 still single, I've probably seen a disciplinary court. I can't imagine going another year single....years ago. And yet I am. The reason I don't know what I'd do is because I do know what is most pertinent to my being....and it's not my sexual desires. It's not the deep yearning to have an intimate, loving relationship. I believe that for many who stay, that's ultimately what it comes down to. They realize or see at some point, what their most important relationship is. 

 

-  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.  

 

 

- But it is possible....not necessarily to change their sexuality but to change the desires of their heart from that of this earth and this moment(s) to one above and beyond our limited perception and day and comfort. Following God, at some point, is not simple. But from what I've learned....where it is the hardest, confusing, and painful...is also the point where the most growth and strength can be wrought. 

 

With That said

 

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

 

Because they love their faith, God, and have been converted to their path through the Spirit and revelation. No, I am not surprised when people leave. The Lord, IMO, has asked them to climb a unique path....one that many do not. It's not easy and I deeply respect those who do. For how many (considering we don't have exact stats I'm hesitant to give a percentage) who leave they deserve my love and the respect to find their own way. I wouldn't judge them for taking a difficult road.

 

 

-  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

 

 

Fairness is not what I care about. Is it what God asks of us if we need to? Yes. God has asked/expected far more than celibacy from His children when the need arises. Look at the ANL's. They covenanted to never return to their sins (in this case murder). Instead of coming to their own defense...which all of us would say was fair and just to do, the sat and were murdered while praising God while dying. And then, those left were called to forgive the people who had just slaughtered them and welcomed them into their lives. Was it fair, in the sense of worldly fairness? No, it's impossible for most of us to imagine. That's the point. The atonement is not a permissive covenant. It is a refining one. And everything and anything that we feel is ours, including our own lives, are open to bring about that refinement. In the process the Lord shows that the impossible is not a word He works with. The ANL society that formed from what appears to be a land of broken people - filled with widows, broken homes, orphans, and repentant murderers - becomes the people who are a refuge and strength that is unimaginable to any other people of their times. That's the message of God, repeated in various awys. You follow and you yield; I will refine and I will define for you what is and isn't possible.

 

- 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.

 

 

See above.

 

 

One last assumption that I'd throw in there: I assume the Lord enjoys showing us that our logic, "free" from ideas of faith, will only ever go so far.

 

With luv,

BD

[Scott Lloyd]

I am not sure if this is true. But I do think that it is not easy being mormon these days. Too much to fight against. I think that it was easier in the past when the church did not stand out so much on moral issues as it does now. I don't think that the church of christ is a popularity contest. It should set a standard for the world to follow. And the church is doing a fine job in this regard. Bottom line: there was nothing bad in the advice that was given at general conference. In fact, it was quite good. Much of world would be better off if they followed it.

Indeed.

 

But the Church has always stood out on moral issues. Perhaps the contrast seems so stark these days because the world has drifted so far into immorality.

[CMZ]

 

 

Can you name ONE revelation from God about homosexuality?

 

Will you take statements that affirm heterosexual marriages in place of statements against homosexuality? Because such revelations do exist.

[why me]

 I would love to be a participant in the law of Chastity, but the church does not recognize gay marriage. 

Even if a gay person was allowed to be married in the temple it would not assure chasity. Gay men and lesbian women also cheat on their partners. I think that there is a bigger problem with gay marriage. For example, once marriage leaves the female/male context, much can go wrong. For example, in europe with a large muslim population, since in some european countries gays can marry, what is to stop muslims from being polygamous? Nothing. One cannot say gays can marry but muslims cannot be polygamous. Freedom is freedom and each group has a right to such freedom. Such is identity politics and equality. I can even take this further but won't.

 

However, as more states ratify gay marriage they just might find it difficult to stop polygamy among the muslims. They should also be free to be polygamous. Likewise for polygamous mormons in the mormon corridor. Their marriages should be legal too if gays can marry legally. Once marriage steps out of traditional roles, every group will have the freedom to marry whom they wish to marry.

Edited April 6, 2014 by why me