Towards A Better Understanding Of Same Sex Attraction And Sin

[california boy]

Whether homosexuals in general and as people are uncommonly Christlike or narcissistic, is beside the point. What is at issue is whether their sexual behavior is sinful and/or immoral or not. If it is, then it ought to be condemned rather than condoned or encouraged  

 

In principle, it is little different from adulterers. They may be some of the nicest and most charming people on the planet, but that doesn't factor into whether their adulterous behavior is sinful and immoral or not and whether their behavior should be condemn and discouraged or not. .

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

Brother Wade, I will pray for you that you will break yourself of this downward spiral you find yourself in.  You don't have to spend your whole life condemning gays to fulfill what God wants and expects out of you.  I too need to be more compassionate and loving towards you.  I promise to work on that.

 

A big hug to you.

[wenglund]

I have found that the repeated, loud horn either becomes background noise that people tune out or becomes such an annoyance that people leave the place where it is. Even the Holy Ghost knows it is not an effective way to change hearts.

The still, small voice is heard when we soften our hearts and make ourselves ready to hear him. Often the way we soften our hearts is feeling the pain of consequences and then feel the love of our Savior guiding us back. If we want others to come back to us they must feel of our love for them. Sometimes people get the mistaken idea that having rules means we don't love others, but sometimes people also get the mistaken idea that loving others means we don't have rules. Not true. As with parenting the gospel works because we have both.

 

Yes, the still small voice certainly suffices with ears tuned and willing to hear. However, as with the example of Alma the younger, sometime far more drastic and unpleasant sounds are required to pierce heavily waxed or somewhat deaf ears. 

 

And, the still small voice suffices in an atmosphere of quite and peace, but as the scriptures also teach, sometimes divine and booming thunders and quacks are needed to pierce and compete against the cacophony of the world.

 

With as heavy and sustained and appealing is the peel towards immorality as found in modern media and pop culture,  a sharp tongue may prove most loving and effective in cutting through the crap.

 

Something to consider.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Ahab]

What pros and cons can I help him weigh if the LDS Church teaches that he can't have a male eternal companion?

That is a con, but on the pro side he could have a companion of the same sex while he is here. I'm sure you could think of some more pros and cons if you would give it some more thought.

With the advances in medical technology, I would be hesitant to say never.

When you realize men will never have an active womb or any eggs of their own then maybe you will realize it is never.

I'm not really sure what this paragraph means.

Or this.

Basically that there is nothing wrong with seeing that someone of the same sex is sexually attractive. There are only trade-offs to having sexual relations with someone of the same sex because there are limits to what people of the same sex can do together.

[wenglund]

Ironically, it's dogs that are closer to your ideal of sex for procreation. We humans have developed it into an art form and avenue for spirituality.

 

Nice try.

 

However, what you suggest would be ironic if procreation between dogs engendered the embryonic divine as it does with humans, particularly via parents who have progressed spiritually to the divine, and renders them capable of becoming Fathers and Mothers in the ultimate and godly senses of the words. Since they don't, then it isn't ironic.

 

And, it may also be ironic if purely sexual relationships that you advocate may logically be equated with "an avenue of spirituality." Since avenues for spirituality entail far more than the purely sexual, it isn't ironic.

 

Thus, the dog collar continues to fit you and not me, and so I will leave you to wear it. 

 

Again, I say this somewhat tongue-in-cheek. 

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited September 16, 2014 by wenglund

[wenglund]

Brother Wade, I will pray for you that you will break yourself of this downward spiral you find yourself in.  You don't have to spend your whole life condemning gays to fulfill what God wants and expects out of you.  I too need to be more compassionate and loving towards you.  I promise to work on that.

 

A big hug to you.

 

I appreciate the prayers and hugs no matter how misguided or based on false assumptions. Here is a brotherly kiss and hug back at you.   

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[rockpond]

Since avenues for spirituality entail far more than pure sex, it isn't ironic.

 

This doesn't seem to align well with your logic for denying marriage to homosexual couples (because they can't have procreative sex).  But I don't want to give you the mistaken impression that I care much about your opinion on this since I find your approach shallow and uncharitable.  Just wanted to point that contradiction that I'm seeing in your statements.

[Rodeo]

How does one go from being of a homosexual orientation to being in a relationship?  The same way heterosexual people get into a relationship.

 

In the church we do a really good job of teaching our kids the joy and blessing of marriage & family.  For the most part it becomes the goal for all of them... even those who are gay.  

 

So we seek those relationships as part of our nature and as a reflection of what we have been taught (and built a testimony of).

So, would you consider an adult who is attracted to children his natural sexual orientation? I have a close friend whose son was in high position in the church and community, oversaw a lot of youth in his charge. He ended up grooming several young girls and ended up having intimate relations with one. He is now in prison for a very long time and part of his sentence is therapy to change his behavior, or ad you call it, his natural sexual orientation.

[rockpond]

So, would you consider an adult who is attracted to children his natural sexual orientation? I have a close friend whose son was in high position in the church and community, oversaw a lot of youth in his charge. He ended up grooming several young girls and ended up having intimate relations with one. He is now in prison for a very long time and part of his sentence is therapy to change his behavior, or ad you call it, his natural sexual orientation.

 

Well, Rodeo, you made it quite a while (21 pages) before bringing up the tired old pedophile analogy.

 

No, I do not consider pedophilia to be a sexual orientation.  It is a hideous act of violence perpetrated on young and usually powerless victims.

[Daniel2]

Whether homosexuals in general and as people are uncommonly Christlike or narcissistic, is beside the point. What is at issue is whether their sexual behavior is sinful and/or immoral or not. If it is, then it ought to be condemned rather than condoned or encouraged

In principle, it is little different from adulterers. They may be some of the nicest and most charming people on the planet, but that doesn't factor into whether their adulterous behavior is sinful and immoral or not and whether their behavior should be condemn and discouraged or not. .

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Where are your threads continually harping--or ringing your fog horn bell--about the evils of adultery? Where are your threads dedicated to criminalizing adultery? Do you continually condemn the adulterous relationships of your friends, neighbors, and coworkers, reminding them about how you and your God cannot and will not tolerate such? That they are sinful, immoral, selfish, animalistic, immature, and narcissitic? Do you continue to create websites and blog entries on the evils of heterosexual promiscuity and unmarried relationships? Edited September 16, 2014 by Daniel2

[wenglund]

This doesn't seem to align well with your logic for denying marriage to homosexual couples (because they can't have procreative sex). 

 

It aligns perfectly if one correctly understands that the divine path to spirituality is, or ought to be intimately tied to the procreative aspect of sex. For, as the scriptures suggest, the man and the women become one flesh, both literally and figurative, physically and spiritually, through conceiving a child. 

 

And, it is not coincidental that the essence of the gospel is frequently wrapped in the spiritual imagery of birth and rebirth as well as Father and Mother and children, if not also genealogies and inheritance. Truly, the gospel of progression is essentially if not all about tradition families.

 

How is it that you did not know this? It is unmistakably set forth in the Proclamation on the Family.  

 

Furthermore, intercourse between a man and a women is highly symbolic in very sacred ways: there is the priest (represented by the man) and the temple (represented by the women), where the priest enters through the outer gates of the temple, through the outer and inner courts, and on into the Holy of Holies, where the ark of the covenant (new and everlasting) rests, and where God dwells in his most creative sense. To me, it isn't coincidental that the temple ceremony includes the creation narrative since there is far reaching spiritual connections between the divine creation and human procreation.  

 

I could go on, but what I have said so far should suffice in making my point.

 

Anyway, such a true path to spirituality is not possible between two men or two women regardless of how fervently and misguidedly you and others may wish that it was. At best they can only mimic and pretend to such things, which unavoidably profanes the sacred and inadvertently follows a false spiritual path.

 

As such, with all your good intents, you do homosexuals a disservice by indulging their false hopes and unwittingly encouraging them along a false spiritual path that in part defies the the path of Christ.

 

But, I get that you think you know better. To each their own.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[rockpond]

For, as the scriptures suggest, the man and the women become one flesh, both literally and figurative, physically and spiritually, through conceiving a child. 

 

It isn't through conception.  Sorry.

 

Are you married, Wade?

[Rodeo]

Well, Rodeo, you made it quite a while (21 pages) before bringing up the tired old pedophile analogy.

 

No, I do not consider pedophilia to be a sexual orientation.  It is a hideous act of violence perpetrated on young and usually powerless victims.

Why do you not consider it a sexual orientation? Ask anyone of them and they will all admit they have strong sexual attraction to them.

Here is what is said about this issue- " Development and sexual orientation

Pedophilia has been described as a disorder of sexual preference, phenomenologically similar to a heterosexual or homosexual sexual orientation because it emerges before or during puberty, and because it is stable over time. [53] These observations, however, do not exclude pedophilia from the group of mental disorders because pedophilic acts cause harm, and pedophiles can sometimes be helped by mental health professionals to refrain from acting on their impulses which cause harm to children."

Here is what a doctor has to say on it- " What is a pedophile?

A pedophile is a person who has a sustained sexual orientation toward children, generally aged 13 or younger, Blanchard says." ( Laura J. Martin, MD)

Here is what a Canadian psychologist had to say on the issue" Van Gijseghem, psychologist and retired professor of the University of Montreal, told members of Parliament, “Pedophiles are not simply people who commit a small offense from time to time but rather are grappling with what is equivalent to a sexual orientation just like another individual may be grappling with heterosexuality or even homosexuality.”

He went on to say, “True pedophiles have an exclusive preference for children, which is the same as having a sexual orientation. You cannot change this person’s sexual orientation. He may, however, remain abstinent.”

When asked if he should be comparing pedophiles to homosexuals, Van Gijseghem replied, “If, for instance, you were living in a society where heterosexuality is proscribed or prohibited and you were told that you had to get therapy to change your sexual orientation, you would probably say that that is slightly crazy. In other words, you would not accept that at all. I use this analogy to say that, yes indeed, pedophiles do not change their sexual orientation.”

You see, the problem is that it comes down to restraint on ones natural desires and not commit sin. You seem to be arguing that because your SSA orientation is natural that you should be able to pursue it. But why not a pedophile? Is it not also a natural attraction? You get into a lot of muddy waters here because at one time homosexuality was on the list of disorders classified by American psychologists. The gay rights agenda put an end to that. But is homosexuality a disorder? If you say pedophilia is a disorder then you also have to say homosexuality is a disorder. But you will not claim this. So I ask the next question- is homosexuality a choice? Yes it is, just as acting on ones pedophilia is also a choice. So, if pedophilia is an orientation and there is therapy to help people change that orientation, or at least not act upon it, why not the same for gays?

[wenglund]

Where are your threads continually harping--or ringing your fog horn bell--about the evils of adultery? Where are your threads dedicated to criminalizing adultery? Do you continually condemn the adulterous relationships of your friends, neighbors, and coworkers, reminding them about how you and your God cannot and will not tolerate such? That they are sinful, immoral, selfish, animalistic, immature, and narcissitic? Do you continue to create websites and blog entries on the evils of heterosexual promiscuity and unmarried relationships?

 

Nice try, but your lame attempt at deflection failed. If there was currently a concerted and widely vocal effort under way to get government endorsement and encouragement and pop cultural normalization of the sin and immorality of adultery, as there is now with the sin and immorality of homosexual behaviors, you may have a valid point. Since there isn't, then you don't.

 

The fact that I pick my battles for whatever reasons, and don't frequently decry every and all other sins, does not make the sexual behaviors between people of the same sex any less a sin or immoral, nor does it make it any less worthy of public criticism. It simply means that I as a human have constraints on my time and energy and interests. 

 

Besides, if you look at the author of the OP for this thread, you may note that it is not me. For some time now I have stopped opening threads and contenting myself with participating on threads opened by others that are of interest to me. I have no control over what threads others chose to open, but If someone opens a thread on adultery in which points are made to which I disagree or about which I feel needs added perspective and emphasis, then I will happily participate.

 

Lastly, it is more than a little ironic and disingenuous to be challenged on my supposed lack of diverse outcry by a guy who is well known for beating the one note drum of homosexuality.

 

But, have a nice day anyway.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited September 16, 2014 by wenglund

[wenglund]

It isn't through conception.  Sorry.

 

No need to apologize for your ignorance. It is perfectly understandable in this increasingly upside-down world awash with the dense fog of pop cultural inanity. If the figurative alludes you, then you can always consult a geneticist to learn of the literal uniting of parent genes in the child.

 

Are you married, Wade?

 

Not that it has any relevance to the topic at hand or the verity or profundity of what I have said, nor is it really any of your business, but, no, I am not married. 

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited September 16, 2014 by wenglund

[rockpond]

No need to apologize for your ignorance. It is perfectly understandable in this increasingly upside-down world awash with the dense fog of pop cultural inanity. If the figurative alludes you, then you can always consult a geneticist to learn of the literal uniting of parent genes in the child.

 

 

Not that it has any relevance to the topic at hand or the verity or profundity of what I have said, nor is it really any of your business, but, no, I am not married. 

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

I was apologizing for having to correct your misunderstanding.

 

Your comments about marriage relationships are reflective of someone who is not actually in one.

[rockpond]

Why do you not consider it a sexual orientation? Ask anyone of them and they will all admit they have strong sexual attraction to them.

 

Sexual orientation is far more than "sexual attraction".

 

These observations, however, do not exclude pedophilia from the group of mental disorders because pedophilic acts cause harm, and pedophiles can sometimes be helped by mental health professionals to refrain from acting on their impulses which cause harm to children.

 

Precisely.

 

Do you also cherry-pick your doctor quotes from anti-gay lobbying organizations?

 

You see, the problem is that it comes down to restraint on ones natural desires and not commit sin. You seem to be arguing that because your SSA orientation is natural that you should be able to pursue it. But why not a pedophile?

 

Pedophiles prey on victims.  I have argued in favor of consensual, committed relationships.  See the difference?

 

 

You get into a lot of muddy waters here because at one time homosexuality was on the list of disorders classified by American psychologists. The gay rights agenda put an end to that. But is homosexuality a disorder? If you say pedophilia is a disorder then you also have to say homosexuality is a disorder. But you will not claim this. So I ask the next question- is homosexuality a choice? Yes it is, just as acting on ones pedophilia is also a choice. So, if pedophilia is an orientation and there is therapy to help people change that orientation, or at least not act upon it, why not the same for gays?

 

The "gay agenda" didn't remove homosexuality as a disorder.  Knowledge did.

 

Pedophilia is a disorder because it harms people.

 

Homosexuality is not a choice.  If you believe that it is, than you are out of line with the church position.

 

Are you really arguing in favor of therapy to change homosexual orientation?

[wenglund]

I could go on... 

 

I neglected to mention a key element of the gospel related to sex, which is featured in the creation/garden narrative found in the temple and scriptures, The very first commandment given to mankind, which also necessitated the fall and subsequent salvation, is to be fruitful and multiply and replenish the earth. Procreation, then, is a fundamental principle of the gospel and is the genesis of each of our spiritual path--which genesis is not possible through sex between members of the same sex.

 

Again, this seems so obvious to me as to cause me to wince having to say it.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[rockpond]

I neglected to mention a key element of the gospel related to sex, which is featured in the creation/garden narrative found in the temple and scriptures, The very first commandment given to mankind, which also necessitated the fall and subsequent salvation, is to be fruitful and multiply and replenish the earth. Procreation, then, is a fundamental principle of the gospel and is the genesis of each of our spiritual path--which genesis is not possible through sex between members of the same sex.

 

Again, this seems so obvious to me as to cause me to wince having to say it.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

Keep wincing... some of us believe that the "genesis of our spiritual path" should be following Christ rather than your obsession with procreative sex.

[wenglund]

I was apologizing for having to correct your misunderstanding.

 

Your comments about marriage relationships are reflective of someone who is not actually in one.

 

I know that was your intent. It just that your comments inadvertently betray a startling naivety and misconception of your own about marriage in relation to the gospel if not also basic biology, and this in spite of your presumably being in a marriage. Gladd I could be of help in setting you straight--puns intended.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[JLHPROF]

Why does this debate continue?  It really is from a gospel perspective.

I suppose I can see the value in a sociological debate, but there really can be no debate in our Mormon religion.

 

1. Homosexual sex is a sin and is considered unnatural (ie, out of the eternal order).

2. God has ordained male and female(s) as the only kind of marriage from the beginning and the only marriage ever approved.

3. All gospel evidence is that in the eternities only male/female marriage can and will exist.

4. Procreation IS the main goal of both sex and marriage (although there are obviously other emotional benefits).

5. Exaltation and the work of our Heavenly Father includes and mandates eternal increase, something that can only accomplished heterosexually through eternal Mothers and Fathers.

 

All of this can be seen in various gospel sources - scripture, prophetic teachings, the temple.  Why we still debate this religiously I don't understand.  Perhaps we need a forum for sociological debate, scientific debate, political debate etc.

[rockpond]

Why does this debate continue?  It really is from a gospel perspective.

I suppose I can see the value in a sociological debate, but there really can be no debate in our Mormon religion.

 

1. Homosexual sex is a sin and is considered unnatural (ie, out of the eternal order).

2. God has ordained male and female(s) as the only kind of marriage from the beginning and the only marriage ever approved.

3. All gospel evidence is that in the eternities only male/female marriage can and will exist.

4. Procreation IS the main goal of both sex and marriage (although there are obviously other emotional benefits).

5. Exaltation and the work of our Heavenly Father includes and mandates eternal increase, something that can only accomplished heterosexually through eternal Mothers and Fathers.

 

All of this can be seen in various gospel sources - scripture, prophetic teachings, the temple.  Why we still debate this religiously I don't understand.  Perhaps we need a forum for sociological debate, scientific debate, political debate etc.

 

Because from a doctrinal standpoint all five of your points are debatable.  And they will probably continue to be debated until clear revelation settles the issue.  I also predict that the debate will continue to heat up and become more of a divisive force among church membership.

Edited September 16, 2014 by rockpond

[Rodeo]

Sexual orientation is far more than "sexual attraction".

 

 

Precisely.

 

Do you also cherry-pick your doctor quotes from anti-gay lobbying organizations?

 

 

Pedophiles prey on victims.  I have argued in favor of consensual, committed relationships.  See the difference?

 

 

 

The "gay agenda" didn't remove homosexuality as a disorder.  Knowledge did.

 

Pedophilia is a disorder because it harms people.

 

Homosexuality is not a choice.  If you believe that it is, than you are out of line with the church position.

 

Are you really arguing in favor of therapy to change homosexual orientation?

I argue in favor of therapy for SSA which is not sinful to not act upon their temptations and fall into homosexual behavior which is sinful

 

We try to be very careful in how we talk about sensitive topics. Everyone is asked to document their opinions at one time or another. It is very important to do that.

[Rain]

Yes, the still small voice certainly suffices with ears tuned and willing to hear. However, as with the example of Alma the younger, sometime far more drastic and unpleasant sounds are required to pierce heavily waxed or somewhat deaf ears. 

 

And, the still small voice suffices in an atmosphere of quite and peace, but as the scriptures also teach, sometimes divine and booming thunders and quacks are needed to pierce and compete against the cacophony of the world.

 

With as heavy and sustained and appealing is the peel towards immorality as found in modern media and pop culture,  a sharp tongue may prove most loving and effective in cutting through the crap.

 

Something to consider.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

Note the emphasis I put on what you said.

 

Since we are not divine then I suggest we go with what Elder Holland said in April Conference:

 

 

 

Be strong. Live the gospel faithfully even if others around you don’t live it at all. Defend your beliefs with courtesy and with compassion, but defend them.

 

I sometimes think that people equate courtesy and compassion with advocacy.  They are not the same.  

[rockpond]

I argue in favor of therapy for SSA which is not sinful to not act upon their temptations and fall into homosexual behavior which is sinful

 

So what kind of therapy for homosexuality do you suggest?

[JLHPROF]

Because from a doctrinal standpoint all five of your points are debatable.

 

But I really don't see how they are.  There are no doctrines pointing to an opposing viewpoint.

Basically, what people are saying is "the existing doctrines aren't clear enough yet for me to accept, but I have no opposing doctrines to counter them either".

 

All the proof we need is in the scriptures, prophetic teachings and the temple.  And there is no proof against that I have ever seen quoted.  Religiously speaking anyway.

Edited September 16, 2014 by JLHPROF