Honesty And Ssa

[Stone holm]

The Church has just chastised BSA for its change in policy that allows openly gay individuals to be adult members or leaders in the organization. Given the Church, at least I believe the Church, has indicated that homosexuals or people with SSA can fully participate in the Church, hold callings, and a Temple Recommend so long as they are chaste, in other words don't follow through on their attraction, their seems to be a bit of dishonesty in play. If that really was the policy of the Church, then it seems to me it would be difficult for the Church to say that a chaste homosexual could not be a Scoutmaster, Cubmaster, Den Leader, or serve on the Scout Committee. Now don't get me wrong, I have never taken the Church leaders at their word about how an openly gay person could be a full participant in the Church eligible for all the callings so long as they were chaste. Nor, do I think it particularly necessary for the Church to allow such activity. As a Bishop if a person with SSA came to me for counsel, my counsel would be if you want to stay active in the Church, hold callings, etc. then keep it to yourself and stay firmly in the closet. If you are going to go on about it publicly, then you are better off to leave the Church. That is a fair, honest and appropriate approach to reality. A reality that has now been confirmed by the Church with its recent news release in response to the BSA announcement.

[KevinG]

I know of at least one chaste homosexual in my old Stake who did serve in Youth leadership callings.  I suspect others do but are very private about their sexuality.

 

What I fear is that any decision that is forced upon religious groups about their ability to select leaders (a situation endorsed by Lambda and other activists) will not include the caveat that they are not sexually active.

[CV75]

The Church has just chastised BSA for its change in policy that allows openly gay individuals to be adult members or leaders in the organization. Given the Church, at least I believe the Church, has indicated that homosexuals or people with SSA can fully participate in the Church, hold callings, and a Temple Recommend so long as they are chaste, in other words don't follow through on their attraction, their seems to be a bit of dishonesty in play. If that really was the policy of the Church, then it seems to me it would be difficult for the Church to say that a chaste homosexual could not be a Scoutmaster, Cubmaster, Den Leader, or serve on the Scout Committee. Now don't get me wrong, I have never taken the Church leaders at their word about how an openly gay person could be a full participant in the Church eligible for all the callings so long as they were chaste. Nor, do I think it particularly necessary for the Church to allow such activity. As a Bishop if a person with SSA came to me for counsel, my counsel would be if you want to stay active in the Church, hold callings, etc. then keep it to yourself and stay firmly in the closet. If you are going to go on about it publicly, then you are better off to leave the Church. That is a fair, honest and appropriate approach to reality. A reality that has now been confirmed by the Church with its recent news release in response to the BSA announcement.

The Church is saying that admitting openly gay leaders is inconsistent with doctrine (marriage and moral sexual relations) and the BSA’s own tradition.

 

Synonyms for “openly” include: publicly, for all to see, blatantly, flagrantly, brazenly, boldly, overtly, in full view; shamelessly, immodestly, wantonly… I think this is how the Church is using it. Chaste and honest individuals do not display these characteristics no matter how others might guess, suspect or come to find out their sexual orientation. They receive their callings in Scouting like anyone else.

[Danzo]

Sin has always been about behavior, not temptations.

 

Some people want to define homosexuality as a temptation, not a sin (which is isn't) then pull a bait and switch and say if the temptation isn't a sin, the behavior isn't.  

 

The want to create the myth of the suffering, chaste, openly homosexual person, make us feel sorry for him and rejoice when he succumbs to the temptation.

 

When I hear the word "openly homosexual person" I cannot imagine it being referred to anyone other than someone who unrepentantly is or is planning to break the law of chastity.

 

I personally would never want to be known as "openly (some sin or other)" even if I am tempted to engage in the sin.  

 

I can't see where a repentant person, who is trying to follow the savior would broadcast his temptations to the world.

[Gray]

The Church is saying that admitting openly gay leaders is inconsistent with doctrine (marriage and moral sexual relations) and the BSA’s own tradition.

 

Synonyms for “openly” include: publicly, for all to see, blatantly, flagrantly, brazenly, boldly, overtly, in full view; shamelessly, immodestly, wantonly… I think this is how the Church is using it. Chaste and honest individuals do not display these characteristics no matter how others might guess, suspect or come to find out their sexual orientation. They receive their callings in Scouting like anyone else.

 

Has the church come out and said that gay people should not only be celibate, but also firmly closeted? 

[Danzo]

Has the church come out and said that gay people should not only be celibate, but also firmly closeted? 

 

What to you mean by closeted?

[Gray]

What to you mean by closeted?

 

Keeping their sexual orientation a secret. Passing. Pretending to be straight. 

[Danzo]

Keeping their sexual orientation a secret. Passing. Pretending to be straight. 

 

What if they act as if their sexuality is not important, is that being closeted?

[rockpond]

The Church has just chastised BSA for its change in policy that allows openly gay individuals to be adult members or leaders in the organization. Given the Church, at least I believe the Church, has indicated that homosexuals or people with SSA can fully participate in the Church, hold callings, and a Temple Recommend so long as they are chaste, in other words don't follow through on their attraction, their seems to be a bit of dishonesty in play. If that really was the policy of the Church, then it seems to me it would be difficult for the Church to say that a chaste homosexual could not be a Scoutmaster, Cubmaster, Den Leader, or serve on the Scout Committee. Now don't get me wrong, I have never taken the Church leaders at their word about how an openly gay person could be a full participant in the Church eligible for all the callings so long as they were chaste. Nor, do I think it particularly necessary for the Church to allow such activity. As a Bishop if a person with SSA came to me for counsel, my counsel would be if you want to stay active in the Church, hold callings, etc. then keep it to yourself and stay firmly in the closet. If you are going to go on about it publicly, then you are better off to leave the Church. That is a fair, honest and appropriate approach to reality. A reality that has now been confirmed by the Church with its recent news release in response to the BSA announcement.

 

I agree.  I think that Newsroom statement serves to support those gay and lesbian church members who feel that they just don't really have a place in the church.  It's sad to me... I don't know of any gay youth who decided to stay with the church.  One tried hard... went to BYU, worthily received a mission call, but decided that he just couldn't do it because there was no place for him in the church.

 

This whole ordeal and newsroom statement certainly isn't going to change his mind.

[Storm Rider]

The Church has just chastised BSA for its change in policy that allows openly gay individuals to be adult members or leaders in the organization. Given the Church, at least I believe the Church, has indicated that homosexuals or people with SSA can fully participate in the Church, hold callings, and a Temple Recommend so long as they are chaste, in other words don't follow through on their attraction, their seems to be a bit of dishonesty in play. If that really was the policy of the Church, then it seems to me it would be difficult for the Church to say that a chaste homosexual could not be a Scoutmaster, Cubmaster, Den Leader, or serve on the Scout Committee. Now don't get me wrong, I have never taken the Church leaders at their word about how an openly gay person could be a full participant in the Church eligible for all the callings so long as they were chaste. Nor, do I think it particularly necessary for the Church to allow such activity. As a Bishop if a person with SSA came to me for counsel, my counsel would be if you want to stay active in the Church, hold callings, etc. then keep it to yourself and stay firmly in the closet. If you are going to go on about it publicly, then you are better off to leave the Church. That is a fair, honest and appropriate approach to reality. A reality that has now been confirmed by the Church with its recent news release in response to the BSA announcement.

 

I suspect we define what it means to be "open" very differently.  If you are talking about someone that wears their sexuality on their shirtsleeve and begins and ends every conversation with a comment about they're being gay, then you are correct.  A Christian lifestyle is not conducive to their stated objectives and goals.  However, if you are talking about someone that knows they are gay and in appropriate circumstances shares their SSA with another or others, then there is no conflict between a person with SSA and being a disciple of Jesus Christ. 

 

The gay lifestyle is completely at odds with the moral teachings of Jesus Christ and the need to conquer one's passions.  Gay lifestyle is the penultimate lifestyle of self-gratification, instant gratification, and fifteen minutes relationships.  The exception to the rule, as in I have never heard of one, is the gay man that grows up, remains chaste, falls in love with another person and lives the rest of his life with them.  Do you know of such an example?  At any time in the history of the world has this type of person been known to exist?  Of course not because it is does not fit within the gay lifestyle and their sexual objectives. 

[Stone holm]

Has the church come out and said that gay people should not only be celibate, but also firmly closeted?

No the Church has not said they should stay in the closet. I have no idea what it means to be openly gay and obey the law of chastity, but I assume it means that the person has come out of the closet. A truly bad idea for a member with SSA, in my opinion. So the Church is saying okay you can openly state you are gay, not practicing and you can have a Temple Recomend, but you can't be a Scout Leader in the Church, but btw we can call a non member to be a Scoutmaster so long as he is straight because it is more important that he be straight than be a believing member of the Church. Oh what a tangled web we weave when once we set out to deceive.

[rockpond]

I suspect we define what it means to be "open" very differently. If you are talking about someone that wears their sexuality on their shirtsleeve and begins and ends every conversation with a comment about they're being gay, then you are correct. A Christian lifestyle is not conducive to their stated objectives and goals. However, if you are talking about someone that knows they are gay and in appropriate circumstances shares their SSA with another or others, then there is no conflict between a person with SSA and being a disciple of Jesus Christ.

The gay lifestyle is completely at odds with the moral teachings of Jesus Christ and the need to conquer one's passions. Gay lifestyle is the penultimate lifestyle of self-gratification, instant gratification, and fifteen minutes relationships. The exception to the rule, as in I have never heard of one, is the gay man that grows up, remains chaste, falls in love with another person and lives the rest of his life with them. Do you know of such an example? At any time in the history of the world has this type of person been known to exist? Of course not because it is does not fit within the gay lifestyle and their sexual objectives.

Yes. And I am seeing increasing numbers of gay men who commit and live monogamous lives. I believe it has to do with them being less marginalized.

I find it interesting that many express disdain that gay people don't pattern their lives after our accepted morality even though for decades we kicked them out of our churches and declared them to be abominations. What lifestyle did we expect from them under those circumstances.

[rockpond]

No the Church has not said they should stay in the closet. I have no idea what it means to be openly gay and obey the law of chastity, but I assume it means that the person has come out of the closet. A truly bad idea for a member with SSA, in my opinion. So the Church is saying okay you can openly state you are gay, not practicing and you can have a Temple Recomend, but you can't be a Scout Leader in the Church, but btw we can call a non member to be a Scoutmaster so long as he is straight because it is more important that he be straight than be a believing member of the Church. Oh what a tangled web we weave when once we set out to deceive.

Excellent point. We recently had a non-member scout leader in our ward. No complaints. He did an amazing job. I guess it was because he was openly straight.

[Mormonmaniac]

The Church has just chastised BSA for its change in policy that allows openly gay individuals to be adult members or leaders in the organization. Given the Church, at least I believe the Church, has indicated that homosexuals or people with SSA can fully participate in the Church, hold callings, and a Temple Recommend so long as they are chaste, in other words don't follow through on their attraction, their seems to be a bit of dishonesty in play. If that really was the policy of the Church, then it seems to me it would be difficult for the Church to say that a chaste homosexual could not be a Scoutmaster, Cubmaster, Den Leader, or serve on the Scout Committee. Now don't get me wrong, I have never taken the Church leaders at their word about how an openly gay person could be a full participant in the Church eligible for all the callings so long as they were chaste. Nor, do I think it particularly necessary for the Church to allow such activity. As a Bishop if a person with SSA came to me for counsel, my counsel would be if you want to stay active in the Church, hold callings, etc. then keep it to yourself and stay firmly in the closet. If you are going to go on about it publicly, then you are better off to leave the Church. That is a fair, honest and appropriate approach to reality. A reality that has now been confirmed by the Church with its recent news release in response to the BSA announcement.

I knowingly would never extend a calling to any youth leader who is openly gay. Even a member who has SSA, it would be difficult if not impossible to extend a calling to them to be a scout leader.

[CV75]

Has the church come out and said that gay people should not only be celibate, but also firmly closeted? 

From what I posted, why would you even ask that?

[KevinG]

If we're having a thread on Same sex attraction honesty would it be imprudent to remind everyone that the vast majority of homosexuals are indeed sexually active. While we may parse that hair in church most homosexual activist groups are not fighting for the right to be celibate and hold Scout leadership positions in a Mormon troop. They are fighting for the recognition of their bahavior as a cultural norm.

I sometimes wonder why declaring a prohibited behavior a sin is considered more of a sin than the sin itself in modern culture.

It's that great and spacious building calling again.

[jkwilliams]

If we're having a thread on Same sex attraction honesty would it be imprudent to remind everyone that the vast majority of homosexuals are indeed sexually active. While we may parse that hair in church most homosexual activist groups are not fighting for the right to be celibate and hold Scout leadership positions in a Mormon troop. They are fighting for the recognition of their bahavior as a cultural norm.

I sometimes wonder why declaring a prohibited behavior a sin is considered more of a sin than the sin itself in modern culture.

It's that great and spacious building calling again.

The problem, of course, is that the policy doesn't distinguish between orientation and sexual activity. Two weeks ago, any leader who admitted being gay would have been kicked out, regardless of their sexual activity. Would anyone care if they were celibate or not, or even ask? A straight Scout leader who is unmarried and sexually active is not a problem.

Sexual orientation is not the same thing as sexual activity, and policies such as the one just rescinded make no distinction. It isn't what you do that is prohibited but who you are.

[Danzo]

The problem, of course, is that the policy doesn't distinguish between orientation and sexual activity. Two weeks ago, any leader who admitted being gay would have been kicked out, regardless of their sexual activity. Would anyone care if they were celibate or not, or even ask? A straight Scout leader who is unmarried and sexually active is not a problem.

Sexual orientation is not the same thing as sexual activity, and policies such as the one just rescinded make no distinction. It isn't what you do that is prohibited but who you are.

You are confusing policy with practice. Regardless of the policy, I never heard of Scouts kicking out a non practicing person with same sex attractions.

[rockpond]

You are confusing policy with practice. Regardless of the policy, I never heard of Scouts kicking out a non practicing person with same sex attractions.

Brian Peffley

Ryan Andresen

Garrett Bryant

[Stone holm]

One of the defendants in the original controversy was a lesbian who was ousted as a den leader. Exactly what would be her threat to the Cubs? The point is we are really not being honest. We believe that all homosexuals are sexual predators, and display characteristics that we do not approve of namely effeminate males and manly women. We want to protect our boys from absorbing those traits so we shun gays. But, the medical community is moving in the direction of this being something that homosexuals don't have control over. And, our doctrine makes uncomfortable judging a person for something they do not have control over...it sounds too much like judging somebody for the color of their skin. So the politically correct thing for us to do is to say they can be a member in good standing so long as they don't act on their attraction. But really, we don't trust them, so we don't want them involved with our boys, after all the affliction might be contagious. My feeling is we should be honest bigots and say we don't like and don't approve of people with unnatural affection.

[Storm Rider]

One of the defendants in the original controversy was a lesbian who was ousted as a den leader. Exactly what would be her threat to the Cubs? The point is we are really not being honest. We believe that all homosexuals are sexual predators, and display characteristics that we do not approve of namely effeminate males and manly women. We want to protect our boys from absorbing those traits so we shun gays. But, the medical community is moving in the direction of this being something that homosexuals don't have control over. And, our doctrine makes uncomfortable judging a person for something they do not have control over...it sounds too much like judging somebody for the color of their skin. So the politically correct thing for us to do is to say they can be a member in good standing so long as they don't act on their attraction. But really, we don't trust them, so we don't want them involved with our boys, after all the affliction might be contagious. My feeling is we should be honest bigots and say we don't like and don't approve of people with unnatural affection.

 

My, you certainly have got that sanctimonious act down pat!  You must have been practicing it for some time and enjoy the feelings you get from shaking your finger at the simple bigots down below your elevated sphere of enlightenment. 

 

I on the other hand, get a kick out of raining on parades.

 

For thousands of years human society has almost never valued the effeminate male for any extended length of time.  They served little purpose because women were so much better at being feminine than those males that sought to emulate a woman's example.  Society encouraged males to be strong; to work hard, and to develop both physically and mentally resulting in the ideal of manhood.  Homosexuality was the act unspoken and vile beyond description in the vast majority of human societies. 

 

In today's more enlightened society, we don't encourage physical strength and almost all other qualities that were once considered masculine are derided and rejected.  It is now thought that if it feels good then each individual should just enjoy it without any questions or expectations from others.  There is no need for morals or ideals; if you have a weakness, expand upon it, become even weaker because you cannot possibly be anything more than what you are.   Don't try so hard; just relax and enjoy all the passions that the body has.  No need for responsibility of families and offspring; just do what feels good. 

 

Now let's talk about honesty for us bigots.  Silly rabbit, the Church is ADJUSTING to the speed that homosexuality has been crammed down the throats of our media driven society.  We do not talk about the health problems of the gay lifestyle; that is not appropriate because it would make the gay lifestyle look bad.  We don't talk about the social norms of the gay lifestyle, which is promiscuity on steroids.  This is not the creation of heterosexuals, rather it is gays describing their own lifestyle and research on this same lifestyle supports it.  No, all the bad stuff has been hidden from civil discourse because....not being honest, promoting a gay agenda was more important than honesty.  I love when those who lie belittle others for what, wait for it, that's right, mendacity.  Sweet irony.

 

While the Church adjusts there is little evidence of "the way it is done" or "the way the Church handles it"; silly honest person.  The Church hasn't finished adjusting and come out with any definitive policies.  What is clear is that the Church calls people to fill roles for a range of reasons, spiritual guidance being one of them.  Not all gay people are the same just as not all Mormons are the same or heterosexuals are the same.  That broad brush stroke you use to accuse the Church and all of its members is just plain wrong and anyone with a ounce of common sense knows it.

 

Some gay males could work with youth whereas others should not be allowed to be within 100 yards of any male under the age of 25.  Why you ask?  Well, gosh Mr. Naïve, it is because they actually are predatory.  The point is that gay men are individuals and if a man with SSA strives to follow a godly path, you know that path that all rest of the men of the Church have to demonstrate to be called to a position,  then he should be able to serve wherever the Lord wants them to serve.  However, if a man with SSA is living a gay lifestyle he will not receive a calling the Church just as a heterosexual single male that is openly living in sin does not receive a calling.  Shocking when it is so fair and even handed, but what can I say, it is the Lord's Church. 

 

The degree of nonsense yammered about is degrading to the entire conversation.  No common sense, no openness, just the same old spinning and mindless condemnation of any idea that threatens their concept of tolerance.  I see this consistently out of the same people that condemn me and those like me for being "intolerant".  Do you ever just stop talking, look in the mirror, and just look at who you are and what you are saying? 

 

Lord have mercy, it makes me shake my head.  And some will actually be surprised when they hear the Lord say, "depart from me, ye that work iniquity." 

[Danzo]

Brian Peffley

Ryan Andresen

Garrett Bryant

These are LDS and obeying the law of chastity?

[Stone holm]

My, you certainly have got that sanctimonious act down pat!  You must have been practicing it for some time and enjoy the feelings you get from shaking your finger at the simple bigots down below your elevated sphere of enlightenment. 

 

I on the other hand, get a kick out of raining on parades.

 

For thousands of years human society has almost never valued the effeminate male for any extended length of time.  They served little purpose because women were so much better at being feminine than those males that sought to emulate a woman's example.  Society encouraged males to be strong; to work hard, and to develop both physically and mentally resulting in the ideal of manhood.  Homosexuality was the act unspoken and vile beyond description in the vast majority of human societies. 

 

In today's more enlightened society, we don't encourage physical strength and almost all other qualities that were once considered masculine are derided and rejected.  It is now thought that if it feels good then each individual should just enjoy it without any questions or expectations from others.  There is no need for morals or ideals; if you have a weakness, expand upon it, become even weaker because you cannot possibly be anything more than what you are.   Don't try so hard; just relax and enjoy all the passions that the body has.  No need for responsibility of families and offspring; just do what feels good. 

 

Now let's talk about honesty for us bigots.  Silly rabbit, the Church is ADJUSTING to the speed that homosexuality has been crammed down the throats of our media driven society.  We do not talk about the health problems of the gay lifestyle; that is not appropriate because it would make the gay lifestyle look bad.  We don't talk about the social norms of the gay lifestyle, which is promiscuity on steroids.  This is not the creation of heterosexuals, rather it is gays describing their own lifestyle and research on this same lifestyle supports it.  No, all the bad stuff has been hidden from civil discourse because....not being honest, promoting a gay agenda was more important than honesty.  I love when those who lie belittle others for what, wait for it, that's right, mendacity.  Sweet irony.

 

While the Church adjusts there is little evidence of "the way it is done" or "the way the Church handles it"; silly honest person.  The Church hasn't finished adjusting and come out with any definitive policies.  What is clear is that the Church calls people to fill roles for a range of reasons, spiritual guidance being one of them.  Not all gay people are the same just as not all Mormons are the same or heterosexuals are the same.  That broad brush stroke you use to accuse the Church and all of its members is just plain wrong and anyone with a ounce of common sense knows it.

 

Some gay males could work with youth whereas others should not be allowed to be within 100 yards of any male under the age of 25.  Why you ask?  Well, gosh Mr. Naïve, it is because they actually are predatory.  The point is that gay men are individuals and if a man with SSA strives to follow a godly path, you know that path that all rest of the men of the Church have to demonstrate to be called to a position,  then he should be able to serve wherever the Lord wants them to serve.  However, if a man with SSA is living a gay lifestyle he will not receive a calling the Church just as a heterosexual single male that is openly living in sin does not receive a calling.  Shocking when it is so fair and even handed, but what can I say, it is the Lord's Church. 

 

The degree of nonsense yammered about is degrading to the entire conversation.  No common sense, no openness, just the same old spinning and mindless condemnation of any idea that threatens their concept of tolerance.  I see this consistently out of the same people that condemn me and those like me for being "intolerant".  Do you ever just stop talking, look in the mirror, and just look at who you are and what you are saying? 

 

Lord have mercy, it makes me shake my head.  And some will actually be surprised when they hear the Lord say, "depart from me, ye that work iniquity."

Interesting. I really don't have a problem with us discriminating against gays. And, I tend to think they can get over it. That tends to get me classified as a bigot. But I think it is better to be honest about it. I supported SSM, not because I like or condone homosexuality, but because it was the legally right thing to do if we expect our own liberties to be protected. I felt that had the Church stood up in favor of the original compromise which is what has now become the fact, the whole BSA controversy would have died down. Had they reacted to the recent change like the Catholic Church did they could have maintained their position without becoming the media whipping boy. However, whenever anyone points out the irony of the Church's current public relations stance, they tend to get personally attacked and called names...but no one gives a satisfactory answer to the conundrum.

[rockpond]

These are LDS and obeying the law of chastity?

 

No.

 

You said:  " I never heard of Scouts kicking out a non practicing person with same sex attractions."

 

So I was giving you some names.  I imagine there are others but these are a few who made the headlines.

[california boy]

One of the defendants in the original controversy was a lesbian who was ousted as a den leader. Exactly what would be her threat to the Cubs? The point is we are really not being honest. We believe that all homosexuals are sexual predators, and display characteristics that we do not approve of namely effeminate males and manly women. We want to protect our boys from absorbing those traits so we shun gays. But, the medical community is moving in the direction of this being something that homosexuals don't have control over. And, our doctrine makes uncomfortable judging a person for something they do not have control over...it sounds too much like judging somebody for the color of their skin. So the politically correct thing for us to do is to say they can be a member in good standing so long as they don't act on their attraction. But really, we don't trust them, so we don't want them involved with our boys, after all the affliction might be contagious. My feeling is we should be honest bigots and say we don't like and don't approve of people with unnatural affection.

Now we are getting to the truth of how gays are viewed by church members. You forgot that all gays want to have sex with children, and their mission is to recruit as many straight boys as possible to join them in their heathenistis lifestyle. Gays are out to destroy families and do the bidding of satan. The only way gays can take part in the plan of salvation is to become straight. And if they wanted to enough, they could become straight. And just for Scott, the gay juggernaut won't be happy until Christianity is destroyed. Those who think differently are apostates and going down a path to apostasy.

But we will allow gays to attend church if they don't participate because the church leaders tell us we should treat them with love. Did we miss anything?

If you think I exagerate, just read through the thread on the BSA.