15 Ways To Help People In A Difficult Faith Transition Over Historical And Doctrinal Issues

[DBMormon]

Well good for you DB.  I wish you well and hope I am mistaken.  Are you getting invitations from out of state?  Anything from leaders who found you on the internet as opposed to knowing you personally?

 

I would imagine that would be the great challenge- earning trust of leadership who had never heard of you except on the internet.  Of course if you have official endorsements, that would be vastly different.

 

I would find it very difficult to carry on the kind of work you do with your personal level of doubt, but we each deal with these issues differently.

 

I really would still like to sit down with you for an hour or so and chat sometime.

I have been to one state outside my own and to another country as well (Canada) to give special presentations.  I was also invited by one mission president last year outside my state to speak to his missionaries but my schedule would not allow.  2 of the 3 did not know of me personally but found me (the podcast) online.

 

No endorsements of any kind though I have received positive feedback from many and one higher up leader who is aware of what I am doing and who has been supportive and encouraging. 

 

My level of doubt is not severe.  I am not leaving and I have faith that the church is true.  Though my doubt is there and it co-exists with my faith.  

 

I would love to chat as well.  I am open to anyone here who wants to chat by phone or the like

Edited September 9, 2014 by DBMormon

[cinepro]

I think I was.

 

But I certainly wasn't born homosexual OR heterosexual, social constructs that didn't even exist until the end of the 19th century and which still are new categories of 'being' in many parts of the world that have suffered less of the West's colonisation of the imagination. I was just born to be sexual, with no prefix attached. And the Gospel of Jesus Christ has thankfully taught me the happy way to be so, free of the labels, philosophies, and shackles of men.

 

What are you talking about?  As far as I know, the world has always been filled with communities and cultures where people are mostly heterosexual with a minority of homosexual people (and some degree of people who are a little of both).  The only thing that changes is how aware the heterosexual people are of the homosexual people, and how they deal with it when they find out.

 

And are you saying that you specifically were born with the ability to find equal attraction between men or women, and it was only Church teachings that directed the post-pubescent you to presumably strictly heterosexual attractions?  It's possible this is the case for you (you may be one of the few who could claim equal attraction to both men and women), but again, it is my understanding that most people strongly feel attraction for only men or only women, and it isn't because of what they learned (or didn't learn) in Primary.  Certainly there isn't anything I can imagine (apart from long prison time or Matt Bomer) that would lean me in that direction. 

Edited September 9, 2014 by cinepro

[omni]

What did he say that contradicts the gospel? He said many things that contradict the world's opinion, but what did he say that is disagreed with by God?

I didn't say it contradicted the gospel, but that doesn't necessarily make it true. I think God's on the side of love with one.

Edited September 10, 2014 by omni

[DBMormon]

What are you talking about?  As far as I know, the world has always been filled with communities and cultures where people are mostly heterosexual with a minority of homosexual people (and some degree of people who are a little of both).  The only thing that changes is how aware the heterosexual people are of the homosexual people, and how they deal with it when they find out.

 

And are you saying that you specifically were born with the ability to find equal attraction between men or women, and it was only Church teachings that directed the post-pubescent you to presumably strictly heterosexual attractions?  It's possible this is the case for you (you may be one of the few who could claim equal attraction to both men and women), but again, it is my understanding that most people strongly feel attraction for only men or only women, and it isn't because of what they learned (or didn't learn) in Primary.  Certainly there isn't anything I can imagine (apart from long prison time or Matt Bomer) that would lean me in that direction. 

amen Cinepro.  thank you for your post.  Having feelings for one gender or another for 99% of people is not a choice.  

[VideoGameJunkie]

I thought I was kind of gay until I hit puberty, then came my huge fascination and attraction to beautiful women. No wonder I haven't found anyone yet, I look at looks.

[mfbukowski]

I have been to one state outside my own and to another country as well (Canada) to give special presentations.  I was also invited by one mission president last year outside my state to speak to his missionaries but my schedule would not allow.  2 of the 3 did not know of me personally but found me (the podcast) online.

 

No endorsements of any kind though I have received positive feedback from many and one higher up leader who is aware of what I am doing and who has been supportive and encouraging. 

 

My level of doubt is not severe.  I am not leaving and I have faith that the church is true.  Though my doubt is there and it co-exists with my faith.  

 

I would love to chat as well.  I am open to anyone here who wants to chat by phone or the like

Well good for you then!  Congratulations- you seem to be making excellent progress!

 

We will definitely chat soon then!

[Tacenda]

I love your honesty VGJ! And your faithfulness!! Your posts make me smile and your truthfulness and ability to be yourself no matter what others think, is so refreshing.

[VideoGameJunkie]

Thanks Tacenda! I appreciate the kind words. I feel it's always refreshing to hear honesty and be truthful, so I try to be those two myself. Heavenly Father loves us for who we truly are, so I have to be who I truly am.

[Tacenda]

Sorry...no quote function while using my phone. MF, now do you see what I meant about DB having the trust factor from leaders in church?

[BookofMormonLuvr]

I am informed. Thanks.

 

You are walking a fine line. We do not allow gay bashing on this board.

Whoa! How has Rodeo engaged in "gay bashing"??? He ha merely pointed out, rightfully so, that behavior is a choice. He has made no personal attacks against the homosexual community.

I am beginning to see that constant "equality" drumbeat is beginning to wear the Saints down.

[california boy]

I have all kinds of sexual feelings or feelings of attractions that are immoral. These feelings come and they go. There are times when I dwell on some of those attractions and I end up sinning in one degree or another. I even know I am sinning doing it. But I am not born this way. I train my own attractions. I also have the ability to train my attractions into the proper channels. Homosexual behavior is defined as acting upon ones desires to please and fulfill physical needs. It is a sin in every fashion, form and situation. Think of this- heterosexual people like myself are very attracted to physical passions and pleasures. Left unbridled I could satisfy these pleasures in a variety of manners all of which are immoral and sinful. It doesnt take much for the mind to become convinced that any type of pleasure is acceptable and fun given the right situation. But to just say that "I was born this way" is false. No one is born to be sinful.

 

I would be more inclined to believe all this nonsense if you had "chosen" not to get married and live a celibate life.  You didn't.  Finding someone to share your life with I suspect was an important life goal.  Just think for a minute how different your life would be without your wife and family.  It is not just about fulfillment of some sexual fetish.  So quit pretending that is what this is all about.

[Rodeo]

I would be more inclined to believe all this nonsense if you had "chosen" not to get married and live a celibate life.  You didn't.  Finding someone to share your life with I suspect was an important life goal.  Just think for a minute how different your life would be without your wife and family.  It is not just about fulfillment of some sexual fetish.  So quit pretending that is what this is all about.

Sexual, or intimate relations, are what binds a couple together. Its the foundational reason we pair up and marry. Homosexual relationships are based on sexual and/or intimate relations. Its a choice we make based mostly on sensory inputs in our surroundings. I do not sugar coat din. Sin is sin regardless if we say it " feels natural", or we say "we were born that way". We can choose our behavior whether we follow after lusts of the flesh, emotions of the heart, or some other reason or desire. We have counsel as to what is and isnt sin. Strong same sex attraction is not sin. This is no different than me, a married man, to have strong attraction to other females. As long as I do not engage thosr desires and pursue them it is not a sin. Its only when I choose to act on that desire that it is sin. Gay people have a choice to either live a celibate life or change their desires. For many this change is possible.

[VideoGameJunkie]

I have compassion for those that can't control their thoughts and desires sometimes. I have Tourette's Syndrome which affects what I think to the point of not controlling what I think or say at times. I hope these are not sins because it's a medical condition not of my choosing. Unless I chose Tourettes in the pre mortal life to make my life more interesting and challenging.

[Calm]

" Its the foundational reason we pair up and marry."

I sure hope not. If so, as soon as sexual relations are less than stellar...say when a spouse gets sick or has to travel alot, the marriage would have little reason to continue.

My husband was not the person I had the strongest sexual attraction to in my life. He was the one I had the best friendship with, the one who was most dependable and a huge factor for me, would obviously be a father who would want to spend time with his kids, who would value that time as much as having adult relationships. There were also several other factors that were important to me, including his strong faith, that had nothing to do with sex or physical attraction though that was definitely a factor in the overall decision.

Edited September 10, 2014 by calmoriah

[VideoGameJunkie]

I agree with cal, marriage isn't all about sex and procreation. If it was, everyone would have 11 children.

[JLHPROF]

" Its the foundational reason we pair up and marry."

I sure hope not. If so, as soon as sexual relations are less than stellar...say when a spouse gets sick or has to travel alot, the marriage would have little reason to continue.

 

 

I agree with cal, marriage isn't all about sex and procreation. If it was, everyone would have 11 children.

 

The question is what does God think of sex within marriage.  Did God create it JUST for procreation or is it there for building closeness between spouses?  In the early days of the church the thought leaned to the former (although not entirely) and now the Church basically stays out of its married members bedrooms.  But, does God and scripture give us any indication where on the spectrum between recreation and procreation God would like us to land?

[VideoGameJunkie]

So what is the church's stance on birth control between married couples, such as condoms and birth control pills? Not talking abortion.

[Rodeo]

" Its the foundational reason we pair up and marry."

I sure hope not. If so, as soon as sexual relations are less than stellar...say when a spouse gets sick or has to travel alot, the marriage would have little reason to continue.

My husband was not the person I had the strongest sexual attraction to in my life. He was the one I had the best friendship with, the one who was most dependable and a huge factor for me, would obviously be a father who would want to spend time with his kids, who would value that time as much as having adult relationships. There were also several other factors that were important to me, including his strong faith, that had nothing to do with sex or physical attraction though that was definitely a factor in the overall decision.

My wife has always had a very low sex drive. After our last child it took almost a year to re-establish sexual relations. But we are still close and are intimate in our own ways. We still make that intimate connection which is important in any relationship of this nature. A healthy normal relationship is founded upon ones intimate relations regardless of how it is shown.

[Rodeo]

So what is the church's stance on birth control between married couples, such as condoms and birth control pills? Not talking abortion.

The church has no position on the use of birth control. Here is the official stance from the church instruction book-

" Birth Control

It is the privilege of married couples who are able to bear children to provide mortal bodies for the spirit children of God, whom they are then responsible to nurture and rear. The decision as to how many children to have and when to have them is extremely intimate and private and should be left between the couple and the Lord. Church members should not judge one another in this matter.

Married couples should also understand that sexual relations within marriage are divinely approved not only for the purpose of procreation, but also as a way of expressing love and strengthening emotional and spiritual bonds between husband and wife."

[thatjimguy]

That list is SPOT ON!

[Hamba Tuhan]

What are you talking about?  As far as I know, the world has always been filled with communities and cultures where people are mostly heterosexual with a minority of homosexual people (and some degree of people who are a little of both).

 

That's because whenever a particular discourse becomes dominant, it does so in large part by masking its own genealogy (in the Foucauldian sense) in order to appear 'without history', something that has 'always already' existed and which therefore encapsulates universal Truth.

 

Enter the historians ... who of course mostly get ignored, because we're boring. And subversive. Though on this point we are backed up by the anthropologists and the linguists as well. In fact, I belong to a school in a large research university comprised entirely of historians, anthropologists, and linguists who conduct research in the Pacific Islands and Asia, and not one of them would endorse what you think you 'know'.

 

Because the whole concept of sexual identity has a knowable history, and it stretches only as far back as the late 19th century, and then only in the West. (And then it took a long time before it became the dominant -- and at this point pretty much hegemonic -- discourse even there.) In other parts of the world, it's all still a relatively recent introduction, first brought by European colonialism and currently in an ascendant phase due in large part to the almost irresistible 'colonialism' of the Western entertainment complex (of which I assume, from your moniker, that you're a part).

 

If you're genuinely interested in more reading, I can repeat some of what I've posted in the past:

 

'Gendered Sexuality: The Privileging of Sex and Gender in Sexual Orientation': 'The social-constructionist approach has posed important challenges to ahistorical, essentialist accounts of sexual orientation and extended our understanding of the impact of culture on human sexuality. Most constructionist analyses have focused on homosexual identities, however, ignoring heterosexuality and bisexuality. By attending predominantly to homosexual identities, researchers may seem to support the notion that only "deviant" sexuality (i.e., homosexuality) is socially constructed as opposed to the more radical idea that all sexual orientations are constructed, or that the entire concept of a sexual orientation is itself a social construction. After all, heterosexuality as a sexual identity (rather than as a default behavior pattern) is a rather recent phenomenon in our society, only called into being by the existence of homosexuality'.

'Sexual orientation, according to this definition, has three constituents: First, it is a sexual attraction; second, it is gendered, meaning that it is defined by the gender of its object; and third, it is consistent over time and space. I will not dwell on the third quality, that of consistency, although there is considerable evidence to challenge the notion that sexual orientation is consistent over time and/or space. Instead, I wish to examine the first and second factors, those of sexuality and gender. I will claim that "sexual orientation" (as it is understood in modern Western culture) privileges both sexuality and gender as fundamental, biological categories of experience. By this I mean that the way in which sexual orientation is understood by both the mainstream culture and the scientific community has resulted in the assumption of sexuality and gender as basic and self-explanatory. Our cultural construct of sexual orientation focuses attention narrowly on sexuality and gender as the key elements of relationships instead of examining the wide range of human bonding preferences'.

'Perhaps sex-centrality was inevitable given the increasing discourse of sexuality in Western culture and the proliferation of a sexual zoology ... In addition to typologies of sexuality becoming more elaborate, Freudian theory increased the pervasiveness of sexual discourse by fostering the notion that no human bonding is free from sexuality. Thus not only were a variety of sexual categories available, but all human relationships( friendships, parent-child relationships) became imbued with sexuality, and emotional attachment came to be seen as linked with sexual desire'.

 

'Sexual Orientation and Mental Health': 'Historically speaking, sexual orientation is a fairly new construct. Although heterosexual and homosexual behaviors are ubiquitous across human societies, notions of “the homosexual” and “the heterosexual”—as well as the very idea that individuals can be defined in terms of their sexual attractions and behaviors—emerged in medical discourse only in the nineteenth century. They are usually traced to Karl Maria Benkert's use of “homosexuality” in 1868 in a German-language pamphlet. Benkert also introduced the term “heterosexual” in 1868'.

 

If you prefer, you can cling to your demonstrably ahistorical understanding of sexual identity -- and by so doing contribute to the shoring up of its discursive hegemony and the expansion of such across cultural and spatial boundaries-- but I would suggest that the risks of ignoring history extend far beyond merely being condemned to repeat the mistakes of the past.

Edited September 10, 2014 by Hamba Tuhan

[california boy]

Sexual, or intimate relations, are what binds a couple together. Its the foundational reason we pair up and marry. 

If sex is the foundational reason why people get married, then why do so many couples who don't believe that sex outside of marriage is a sin bother to marry at all.  Does an athiest get married because he believes sex outside of marriage is a sin?  You have a very warped sense of relationships if you think that sex is the foundational reason people get married, which might explain your very warped sense of homosexuality.

 

Homosexual relationships are based on sexual and/or intimate relations.

 

 

Homosexual relationships are based on the exact same kinds of emotions and connections as heterosexual relations.  There is more to ANY relationship than just sex unless your sole human relationship involves prostitution.  It is hardly just about sex.  If that were the case why do gays even want to get married?  Clearly they are having sex without marriage.  I think you need to go home to your spouse and ask her why she married you.  I doubt that sex is even in the top five reasons.  After all, if you are a faithful LDS, how could she possibly know whether the sex between you would even be worth it.

 

If homosexuality is just a choice, then can you explain why thousands of Mormons "choose" to be gay?  Do you think they are looking forward to a life of celibacy and being alone, not able to share this life with a spouse?  Once again I ask, how different would your life be if you did not have your wife and family as a part of it?  Would the only thing missing in your life be a lack of sex???  Do you think gay Mormons choose to be gay so they can avoid that kind of life and look forward to being celibate and alone????

 

Seriously, you really have some very warped views on sexuality.  Sex outside of marriage for both gay and straight people may be a sin, but that is not the reason either group longs to find companionship.  And just like being heterosexual, being gay is NOT all about sex.  It is about being attracted to someone of the same sex, falling in love, wanting to spend your life together and building relationships that enrich and strengthen your life.  It just happens they are attracted to someone of the same sex.  

Edited September 10, 2014 by california boy

[Rodeo]

If sex is the foundational reason why people get married, then why do so many couples who don't believe that sex outside of marriage is a sin bother to marry at all.  Does an athiest get married because he believes sex outside of marriage is a sin?  You have a very warped sense of relationships if you think that sex is the foundational reason people get married, which might explain your very warped sense of homosexuality.

 

 

Homosexual relationships are based on the exact same kinds of emotions and connections as heterosexual relations.  There is more to ANY relationship than just sex unless your sole human relationship involves prostitution.  It is hardly just about sex.  If that were the case why do gays even want to get married?  Clearly they are having sex without marriage.  I think you need to go home to your spouse and ask her why she married you.  I doubt that sex is even in the top five reasons.  After all, if you are a faithful LDS, how could she possibly know whether the sex between you would even be worth it.

 

If homosexuality is just a choice, then can you explain why thousands of Mormons "choose" to be gay?  Do you think they are looking forward to a life of celibacy and being alone, not able to share this life with a spouse?  Once again I ask, how different would your life be if you did not have your wife and family as a part of it?  Would the only thing missing in your life be a lack of sex???  Do you think gay Mormons choose to be gay so they can avoid that kind of life and look forward to being celibate and alone????

 

Seriously, you really have some very warped views on sexuality.  Sex outside of marriage for both gay and straight people may be a sin, but that is not the reason either group longs to find companionship.  And just like being heterosexual, being gay is NOT all about sex.  It is about being attracted to someone of the same sex, falling in love, wanting to spend your life together and building relationships that enrich and strengthen your life.  It just happens they are attracted to someone of the same sex.

Studies have been done that show homosexuals have more sexual encounters with more partners...

[california boy]

Studies have been done that show homosexuals have more sexual encounters with more partners...

So?

 

Studies have been done that show unmarried heterosexuals have more sexual encounters with more partners?   Perhaps the fact that Mormons not wanting gays to marry contributes to that statistic.

 

I guess this nonsense answer was easier to answer than the questions I posed to you.

 

If homosexuality is just a choice, then can you explain why thousands of Mormons "choose" to be gay?  Do you think they are looking forward to a life of celibacy and being alone, not able to share this life with a spouse?  Once again I ask, how different would your life be if you did not have your wife and family as a part of it?  Would the only thing missing in your life be a lack of sex???  Do you think gay Mormons choose to be gay so they can avoid that kind of life and look forward to being celibate and alone????

 

Edited September 10, 2014 by california boy

[Buzzard]

I agree with cal, marriage isn't all about sex and procreation. If it was, everyone would have 11 children.

Someone needs to do their family history. Before the advent and availability of modern birth control, most women had a LOT of children. Travel by the husband didn't even seem to slow them up much. Daniel Boone, who was gone from home for months at a time, fathered 13 children. What was true was that it was not expected that all of them would make it to adulthood.  Joseph and Emma had 10 children (he was gone a lot, as well), but I would have to check to see how many od them lived to adulthood. 3/4/5?