How to communicate love to LGBT members?

[jkwilliams]

On 6/6/2016 at 0:27 AM, Mystery Meat said:

In all sincerity, I would like to know what can be done to communicate to LGBT members (and nonmembers) that we love them. In all my discussions online and in real life, it seems to me that what pro-gay/LGBT advocates want in order to communicate love is basically a repudiation of eternal truth, sound doctrine, revelation and scriptural precedent. But maybe I am wrong. For those of you who think member of the Church could be more loving, what do you specifically have in mind?

For my part I am unwilling to give up any of the following:

• Teach that it is not okay for people of the same-sex to have romantic relationships; rather we need to proactively teach the Lord's standard on this and that such is sinful behavior.
• Teach that it is not okay for men to marry men and women to marry women.
• Encourage members who feel attracted to members of their same gender that they should not embrace their temptation, celebrate it and/or seek to act upon it. That would be like any other sinner with innate, natural man desires to embrace those sinful inclinations and celebrate them. It should not be seen or treated as the central defining characteristic of their identity. Nor should such define themselves as gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, homosexual, queer, or LGBT, as if that is the central focus of their existence. It is okay that they have temptations and it doesn't make them any less worthy than anyone else. They can acknowledge that temptation, even publicly, but we must teach the doctrines of the Church and the Lord and that ALL members should have a testimony of them.
• People who act contrary to the Lord's will and violate the Law of Chastity are subject to Church discipline, whether that is through heterosexual or homosexual relations.

I am to understand that the above mean I am unloving, based on my conversations. I think that is wrong and unfair. So assuming all of the above cannot be taken off the table and that this will continue to be the framework that the Kingdom of God will operate with, is there anything that can be done to show these gay members that they are loved? Or do we have to embrace sin? Help me understand.

Nothing you've said makes you unloving. That would depend on your actions, not the things you believe. If you had a gay family member, friend, or loved one, how would you express those teachings?

If someone you love has a same-sex romantic relationship, which you consider sinful, would they still be welcome in your home, your life? Would their partner/spouse? Would you accept their relationship, even though they and you know you don't approve? Would you express your beliefs lovingly, and once you understand they disagree, would you keep bringing it up, keep reminding them they are sinning and are not accepted of the Lord?

I don't have gay children, but I do have kids who have made choices and decisions I didn't approve of. To me, it was enough to express to them that I didn't agree with what they chose and why. After that, it was my choice to love and accept them, anyway. That's how I would approach a gay child if I thought they were sinning: tell them how I feel and leave it at that. 

As an unbeliever, I would advise a gay person to find a committed partner and live a happy life. If they were hell-bent on staying in the LDS church and living a life of lonely self-denial, I'd have to accept that and love them anyway.

[rodheadlee]

On 6/6/2016 at 11:59 AM, stemelbow said:

Well to be fair, the policy change, Prop 8 are things the Church did against gay people, rather than just clarifying teaching.  Prop 8 just like the current push in Mexico was the Church pushing against the rights of gay people.  The policy change labeled members as apostates and told them their kids are excluded.  If a gay person feels hate because of that, how can they be blamed.  These actions seem to promote hate, even if the Church just sees it as clarifying their position. 

They do these things out of love not hate. To try to avoid the consequences of these sins for the nations and the people individually.  Helaman touches on this in Chapter 5:

2 For as their laws and their governments were established by the voice of the people, and they who chose evil were more numerous than they who chose good, therefore they were ripening for destruction, for the laws had become corrupted.

  3 Yea, and this was not all; they were a stiffnecked people, insomuch that they could not be governed by the law nor justice, save it were to their destruction.

Have you read the Cardston Temple Prophecy? It was written by a Quaker lady after visiting our Temple in Cardston many moons ago. It could be profoundly accurate and it is not a pretty picture. It could be avoided by serving the God (Jesus Christ) of this land. http://www.reliefmine.com/articles/dreams-a-visions/59-dreams-a-visions/93-the-cardston-temple-vision-world-war-iii

Isn't there words in the BoM to the effect that if we don't serve the God of this Land that he will remove us? That he will remove His protection of us from being desrtoyed by other peoples? I certainly believe Mexico is included in these prophecies along with the USA. I don't have time to look up that reference in the BoM (off to work) perhaps someone else could..

[california boy]

On June 8, 2016 at 3:48 AM, Pa Pa said:

I do not need the Church to tell me to love my daughter, no matter want. Nothing she could do would cause me to love her less. She is now going on her third marriage in the little amount since marriage has been approved. Her partners are working on their 4th becaused they reaceled out of state. Friends of mine which includes a man I served in the Bishoric with had a (or has) a gay son, and two other close friends that I attend with weekly have gay sons. Each have had numerous marriages and affairs while in these marriages. Between the three gay men (by there accounts) a total off 7 marriages and 20 lovers among the three men. A,lack of God and morals between the three men (there words since they would argue that morals come from God and because they believe in either, they see nothing wrong in their behavior. 

I have come to know and care for the three mates my wife has chosen, until they we suddenly gone overnight, now we are getting to know the third. So I have seceded that marriage means little to her, so I will not attend another. I love her and she loves me, she also respects my values. This is a beautiful young woman who helped her brother's mission. But now she wants nothing to do with faith of any kind a despises Jesus Christ and God...putting so many tattoos to mark herself as much as she can. She does this because of her distain of her body and who she is, and to send a message to all, in Church and before God, her hatred for both. I see her as often as I can and speak with him 2-3 times a week. She allows me to do so as long as I don't mention of Church, Jesus Christ or God the Father. Even in therapy she blames them all for screwing her up. I once to her that she would never have a child, her reply, "There is no way I would ever bring q child not this world who is as "F" up as me. She is is in therophy 3 times a week. Her angrer from the Chuch is,for teaching her correct principles and because the scriptures forbid homosexuality.

as he father I would go to hell for her, to spar her eternal torment. That is go much I love her, and every time we talk I reminder he how much I love her, and she tells me each time that she loves me. I fear between the Chirch and my Faity that we both stand upon a large casim, unable to reach one another. Oddly whenever she is sick she comes to me for a blessing and everyone I speak in Church she attends. I love her more than than I can express in words. As the Propjet Joseph Smith once said (too paraphrase) to parents "Your children my wonder, but if Parents will honor their covenants, there children must suffer for their sins for a time, but will one day come home to us again" if their ever were a reason to keep Temple Covenants...this is it! 

I really appreciate your post.  Even more, I appreciate your love for your daughter.  I feel your deep concern for her happiness.  It must be difficult for you to understand why your daughter is on such a destructive course.  But quite frankly, what do you expect?

First and foremost, your daughter is human.  We all are born with an inter connection that makes us yearn for love and seek companionship.  When you are gay, and brought up Mormon, you are told that to act on those feelings is a sin, an abomination, and the full judgement of God will be upon you.  You will be kicked out of the church and will never be allowed to take part in the promises and blessings that God offers the rest of His other children.  Did I leave anything out?  Oh yeah.  If you do find a companion to share your life with and settle into a monogamous relationship, you will be branded as an apostate and your children will not be allowed to be baptized into the church.  They will be branded by the sins of their parents and can do nothing about it until they are 18.  Then they will have to disavow their parents for their abhorrent sin.  So the  people that child probably loves above all others must be condemned for their love.  Yeah, I think that about sums up how God deals with gays.

So what is left for your daughter to choose from.  Does it matter one iota whether she desecrates her body from head to toe with tattoo?  Nope.  Does it matter to God if she has one lover or a hundred or a thousand?  Nope.  Does it matter if she enters into one marriage or a hundred?  Nope.  Does it matter if your daughter becomes a prostitute?  Nope.  Does it matter if your daughter becomes a porn actor?  Nope.   If your daughter crosses that well defined line and seeks to find someone to share her life with, than ALL the judgements of God come upon her.  I think it is safe to say, that she has crossed that line.  She wants love in her life.  She wants companionship.  And she knows she is going to hell for acting on those very basic human needs instilled in all of us by God. So her behavior spins out of control because the church condemns her sin of loving another more than any other person.  She would literally have to kill someone to be under more condemnation from God and from the church.  (Actually, I think a murderer's children can still be baptized.  So I guess she is at the very bottom of all sins.)

Unfortunately you can't do a darn thing about it.  Because is all you can offer her is a life of loneliness without any deep human companionship.  She, like most of us is unwilling to do that.  And she knows that no matter what her actions in this life are, unless she commits murder, it is all really unimportant to God and to the church.

[stemelbow]

5 minutes ago, rodheadlee said:

They do these things out of love not hate. To try to avoid the consequences of these sins for the nations and the people individually.  

I'm not arguing whether they do them out of love or not.  All I'm saying is no matter their motivation, I can't fault those who describe the way it comes off to them.  If gay people feel love from the actions, then fine.  But sadly, as has been the case, it seems they feel hate instead.  I can see clearly why they feel hate from this stuff.  It feels like assaults on them rather than any effort to love them/understand them/help them/support them.   Being in the Church and not gay I don't see love so much, but rushes to judgment, and attempts to shut people down.  I don't see love, sadly, for the most part. 

Edited June 9, 2016 by stemelbow

[jkwilliams]

2 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I'm not arguing whether they do them out of love or not.  All I'm saying is no matter their motivation, I can't fault those who describe the way it comes off to them.  If gay people feel love from the actions, then fine.  But sadly, as has been the case, it seems they feel hate instead.  I can see clearly why they feel hate from this stuff.  It feels like assaults on them rather than any effort to love them/understand them/help them/support them.   Being in the Church and not gay I don't see love so much, but rushes to judgment, and attempts to shut people down.  I don't see love, sadly, for the most part. 

Yep, it's the action and its consequences that matter, not the motivation. What's that they say about the road to hell? I have no idea what motivated the policy change, for example, but the effects are obvious and hurtful to a lot of families. 

[Guest]

3 hours ago, Daniel2 said:

In answer to, "Is this what SSM, couples had in mind... I think not," I would agree.  That's not what I had in mind, either.  I am sorry to hear that she and her partners haven't taken the time and effort to make lasting commitments to each other.

With all do respect, it seems to me that, even with your "limited experience with [your] child and a number of gay men through work," it would be a mistake to presume those attitudes apply to a majority of the LGBT population, because a handful of people is not representative of thousands of others.  I know far more LGBT individuals than a handful, and while I don't doubt that some exist, no one I know wants or aspires to the transitory, short-term marital relationships you're describing as it relates to civil marriage. 

I've addressed the lack of fidelity within marriage previously, and stand by my earlier comments.

I hope, for your daugther's sake more than anyone else's, that her relationships don't become an endless revolving door of new lovers and spouses.  As parents, it can be difficult to see them face such personal pain, emotional upheaval, and personal, spiritual, and financial instability.

I'm not sure what you're meaning about being honest and true, but those are both values I admire and aspire to.

D

 

Daniel, you need to read the entire text. All of this began (the conversation) a few weeks ago in Alaska were I was with my best friends, who have a son who is gay as well. Also, when I was the High Priest Group leader we had (a good friend of mine) a member of the Bishopric who was married with five children...but gay. He finally got a divorce, I had an idea that he was gay from a number of things he told me, but I could not bring myself to believe it. Sadly is is gone now. The people I speak of at work I knew some for 20 years. So I am not being rude or argumentative, my experience is (I call it limited) is more than average. I know that you are more respectful than anyone I have met as it relates too this issue. But the article that you listed seem to suggest an excuse for the kind of behavior that I spoke of...have you seen the movie "A Normal Heart", and the documentary about his life, how his worst enemy was from the gay community who did not want to hear anything about being responsible. So to the parents of Gay children; love them no matter what! But that does not mean that we should become doormats does it? 

[Guest]

34 minutes ago, california boy said:

I really appreciate your post.  Even more, I appreciate your love for your daughter.  I feel your deep concern for her happiness.  It must be difficult for you to understand why your daughter is on such a destructive course.  But quite frankly, what do you expect?

First and foremost, your daughter is human.  We all are born with an inter connection that makes us yearn for love and seek companionship.  When you are gay, and brought up Mormon, you are told that to act on those feelings is a sin, an abomination, and the full judgement of God will be upon you.  You will be kicked out of the church and will never be allowed to take part in the promises and blessings that God offers the rest of His other children.  Did I leave anything out?  Oh yeah.  If you do find a companion to share your life with and settle into a monogamous relationship, you will be branded as an apostate and your children will not be allowed to be baptized into the church.  They will be branded by the sins of their parents and can do nothing about it until they are 18.  Then they will have to disavow their parents for their abhorrent sin.  So the  people that child probably loves above all others must be condemned for their love.  Yeah, I think that about sums up how God deals with gays.

So what is left for your daughter to choose from.  Does it matter one iota whether she desecrates her body from head to toe with tattoo?  Nope.  Does it matter to God if she has one lover or a hundred or a thousand?  Nope.  Does it matter if she enters into one marriage or a hundred?  Nope.  Does it matter if your daughter becomes a prostitute?  Nope.  Does it matter if your daughter becomes a porn actor?  Nope.   If your daughter crosses that well defined line and seeks to find someone to share her life with, than ALL the judgements of God come upon her.  I think it is safe to say, that she has crossed that line.  She wants love in her life.  She wants companionship.  And she knows she is going to hell for acting on those very basic human needs instilled in all of us by God. So her behavior spins out of control because the church condemns her sin of loving another more than any other person.  She would literally have to kill someone to be under more condemnation from God and from the church.  (Actually, I think a murderer's children can still be baptized.  So I guess she is at the very bottom of all sins.)

Unfortunately you can't do a darn thing about it.  Because is all you can offer her is a life of loneliness without any deep human companionship.  She, like most of us is unwilling to do that.  And she knows that no matter what her actions in this life are, unless she commits murder, it is all really unimportant to God and to the church.

But you are also taught that seeking such feelings with those of a different sex and multiple sex partners will also lead to displinary action and expulsion from the Church. It is not just a one way street, your words are comforting and kind, but the Church does have rules governing all sexual behavior. When I once asked the question of a friend...does now having the right to marry mean that one would remain a virgin until marriage? I will not repeat what the response was, I am still blushing. 

[Daniel2]

1 hour ago, Pa Pa said:

Daniel, you need to read the entire text. All of this began (the conversation) a few weeks ago in Alaska were I was with my best friends, who have a son who is gay as well. Also, when I was the High Priest Group leader we had (a good friend of mine) a member of the Bishopric who was married with five children...but gay. He finally got a divorce, I had an idea that he was gay from a number of things he told me, but I could not bring myself to believe it. Sadly is is gone now. The people I speak of at work I knew some for 20 years. So I am not being rude or argumentative, my experience is (I call it limited) is more than average. I know that you are more respectful than anyone I have met as it relates too this issue. But the article that you listed seem to suggest an excuse for the kind of behavior that I spoke of...have you seen the movie "A Normal Heart", and the documentary about his life, how his worst enemy was from the gay community who did not want to hear anything about being responsible. So to the parents of Gay children; love them no matter what! But that does not mean that we should become doormats does it? 

Hey, PaPa...

I have been reading all of your comments... My intent was to validate all you've gone through with your daughter, as well as the frustrations, sadness, and sorrow you may be feeling because of the transitory nature of her relationships (as well as those you've heard of, from the other experiences).  I'm not trying to minimize your experiences, and I am trying to give additional and alternate viewpoints.

I get the sense that you feel I'm missing something, or that I'm disagreeing with you somehow.  And I admit: I'm not clear on exactly what your point is.  I'm having difficulty following your comments to your bottom line.

Given that I feel I have read the entire text you've posted, and with the intent of clarifying our communication, could you summarize what your conclusions are, as well as any of your points that you feel I'm either missing or may not have commented on...?  Thanks!

EDITED to add:  By the way, you mentioned that "the article listed seems to suggest an excuse for the kind of behavior [you] spoke of..."  Although I don't recall linking to an article, I did like to Amazon for the book "The Velvet Rage."  Is that the link I listed that you were referring to...?  If so, the book doesn't seek to excuse the type of behaviors you were referring to--in fact, it's exactly the opposite.  It candidly acknowledges the epidemics of promiscuity, substance abuse, etc. within the gay community, seeks to understand the underlying reasons why so many (even a majority) of gay men (in particular) are prone to such self-destructive behaviors and unhealthy relationship and personal health habits, and offers solutions on how to help gays overcome such self-destructive behaviors and choose healthy behaviors to improve personal, mental, emotional, spiritual, and relationship-health. 

In short, I agree with you that the LGBT community suffers far too much from transitory relationships--especially promiscuity and openness within relationships, including marriage--and I support efforts to educate and encourage gays (and lesbians) on how to improve their own lives by avoiding such epidemics.  As it relates to that aspect, I would think that you and I are actually on the same page... unless I'm misreading something... 

Edited June 9, 2016 by Daniel2

[california boy]

1 hour ago, Pa Pa said:

But you are also taught that seeking such feelings with those of a different sex and multiple sex partners will also lead to displinary action and expulsion from the Church. It is not just a one way street, your words are comforting and kind, but the Church does have rules governing all sexual behavior. When I once asked the question of a friend...does now having the right to marry mean that one would remain a virgin until marriage? I will not repeat what the response was, I am still blushing. 

I seek not to judge your daughter nor the church.  I only seek understanding. My sister once asked me a similar question.  She wondered why me and my partner didn't marry now that it is legal.  I asked her if it would make any difference in the eyes of the church, and stated that the message the church is sending out is that it would be worse for me to marry my partner. 

I don't know how your friend answered your question, but would it matter in the eyes of the church if he had 100 partners before marrying or if he was a virgin when he married?  Because the message your daughter and I am getting is that it doesn't matter one bit.  In either case, you are an apostate and committing a sin so grievous, your children will not be allowed to be baptized.  

When a church tells its straight member that it is better for them to remain single and celibate all of their lives, and raising a family is sinful behavior, then it just seems wrong and unnatural and not the will of God at all.  The same exact reaction is how gay people feel as well.  How could anyone expect an different reaction.

I only hope my comments are helping you to understand your child's behavior.  Because I think you truly want to understand why she is doing what she is doing.  I realize it is not your belief or your understanding of the will of God.

[Guest]

11 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

Hey, PaPa...

I have been reading all of your comments... My intent was to validate all you've gone through with your daughter, as well as the frustrations, sadness, and sorrow you may be feeling because of the transitory nature of her relationships (as well as those you've heard of, from the other experiences).  I'm not trying to minimize your experiences, and I am trying to give additional and alternate viewpoints.

I get the sense that you feel I'm missing something, or that I'm disagreeing with you somehow.  And I admit: I'm not clear on exactly what your point is.  I'm having difficulty following your comments to your bottom line.

Given that I feel I have read the entire text you've posted, and with the intent of clarifying our communication, could you summarize what your conclusions are, as well as any of your points that you feel I'm either missing or may not have commented on...?  Thanks!

Daniel, I appreciate your comments and your respect for my feelings and not ever being dismissive of Church doctrine. You have always been a understanding voice here on this website. I am not sure if you read some of the other comments, but this was a question I asked a friend who is not so friendly to the Churches position concerning SSM. I asked; what if the Church allowed SSM and even Temple marriage, would the gay community adopt staying chaste until marriage. He went off on me as to how stupid that idea was and told me what I could do to myself. Every other person I asked, said that living together before marriage is the only way to know if they would be sexually comparable. It would seem that being chaste is something that would never be an idea that would fly in any way. So something that would be comparable to Church doctrine. Also something that could lead to Excommuntion, and a charge that the Church was never serious about. Also did you see the movie I spoke of, and the blowback he founder received, and that was about safe sex. It would seem that Mormonism and Christianity will never come agreement with. When I was in the Bishopric, both conselors had gay children. But never once did the Bishop ever say anything negative about our children, and only admonished us to love them unconditionally. The Church is not the problem, it is the hatred targeted at the Church. It problem as I see it is that everyone wants us to deny our doctrine and the scriptures, and adopt the ways of the world. 

So what are we to do, abandon all we believe at the cost of our soul, and the soul of our faith? I love my daughter will all my heart, she makes me laugh more than any other...but what am I to do. When she comes over almost every Sunday she finds a way to insult my other married children, because they are in traditional marriages. There was a blowup because my youngest and his wife had to move back in...she did not want them having sex in "her bed" that she left behind...she said,she wanted to keep it (even though she lives with her girlfriend that she will marry in November. We moved it out of her room, and the day after she got upset she put it on EBay (or what ever people sell on these days) to be sold. Her hatred for the Church and for Christ grows daily, but when she is sick she comes to me for blessings everything she gets sick or scared. I sometimes feel like I am in a nightmare. So tell me, because you are always truthful and straight with me...is there any chance that if the Chuch were to adopt SSM, will gay persons adopt the commandments and rules for others seeking Temple marriage? 

[Daniel2]

39 minutes ago, california boy said:

I seek not to judge your daughter nor the church.  I only seek understanding. My sister once asked me a similar question.  She wondered why me and my partner didn't marry now that it is legal.  I asked her if it would make any difference in the eyes of the church, and stated that the message the church is sending out is that it would be worse for me to marry my partner. 

I don't know how your friend answered your question, but would it matter in the eyes of the church if he had 100 partners before marrying or if he was a virgin when he married?  Because the message your daughter and I am getting is that it doesn't matter one bit.  In either case, you are an apostate and committing a sin so grievous, your children will not be allowed to be baptized.  

When a church tells its straight member that it is better for them to remain single and celibate all of their lives, and raising a family is sinful behavior, then it just seems wrong and unnatural and not the will of God at all.  The same exact reaction is how gay people feel as well.  How could anyone expect an different reaction.

I only hope my comments are helping you to understand your child's behavior.  Because I think you truly want to understand why she is doing what she is doing.  I realize it is not your belief or your understanding of the will of God.

I think the thing that so many within the LGBT population are missing, CaliforniaBoy, is that marriage, monogamy, moderation (regarding alcohol consumption), and abstinence (from illegal drugs), and fidelity all have their own intrinsic secular rewards and benefits (i.e. increased physical, mental, and emotional health, longevity within relationships, etc.), regardless of their advocacy by religion.  Gays and lesbians that reject those values once they 'throw off the shackles of religious control' (in their eyes) may very well be throwing out the baby with the bathwater.  Numerous studies illustrate the legal, financial, mental, and emotional benefits of committed marital relationships, for example.  Such studies illustrate that it's far more than "just a piece of paper" or even just "religious endorsement or approval."  It has it's own intrinsic benefits.

[california boy]

20 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

I think the thing that so many within the LGBT population are missing, CaliforniaBoy, is that marriage, monogamy, moderation (regarding alcohol consumption), and abstinence (from illegal drugs), and fidelity all have their own intrinsic secular rewards and benefits (i.e. increased physical, mental, and emotional health, longevity within relationships, etc.), regardless of their advocacy by religion.  Gays and lesbians that reject those values once they 'throw off the shackles of religious control' (in their eyes) may very well be throwing out the baby with the bathwater.  Numerous studies illustrate the legal, financial, mental, and emotional benefits of committed marital relationships, for example.  Such studies illustrate that it's far more than "just a piece of paper" or even just "religious endorsement or approval."  It has it's own intrinsic benefits.

I don't disagree with you one bit.  I am only trying to explain the reason why so many gays and specifically former members of the church no longer look to a church to guide their behavior and beliefs. I think eventually most gays do settle down and decide for themselves how they want to live their lives. They make their life choices based on what is best for them rather than what some religious group tells them is best for them.  There is a balance that can happen. I certainly have not abandoned many of the teachings of the church that still have great value in my life.  And I will be forever grateful for the church in teaching me those values.

[Daniel2]

20 hours ago, Pa Pa said:

Daniel, I appreciate your comments and your respect for my feelings and not ever being dismissive of Church doctrine. You have always been a understanding voice here on this website. I am not sure if you read some of the other comments, but this was a question I asked a friend who is not so friendly to the Churches position concerning SSM. I asked; what if the Church allowed SSM and even Temple marriage, would the gay community adopt staying chaste until marriage. He went off on me as to how stupid that idea was and told me what I could do to myself.

My answer to that question (that is, "What if the Church allowed SSM and even Temple marriage, would the gay community adopt staying chaste until marriage?"), is: 

Of course not.  And I wouldn't expect the endorsement of marriage for same-sex couples by Mormonism (or any/all other religions) to change the entire "gay community," in the same way that the fact that the LDS (and a great many other churches) have allowed marriages of opposite-sex couples (and, in the case of Mormonism, Temple Marriage) haven't caused the entire straight community to adopt staying chaste until marriage.  Attitudes about pre-marital and extra-marital sex exist independent of the beliefs of tenants of other Faiths or cultures.  And oftentimes, that works both ways.  For example, just because the majority of Americans feel that pre-marital sex is OK, that hasn't affected or altered Mormonism's belief or practice of abstinence until marriage--and I don't expect that ever will.

The response offered by your 'friend' (who doesn't sound particularly friendly, to me, btw... lol) reflects his rejection of the preferability of abstinence until marriage.  While I can respect and appreciate that position, I would disagree with the tone and delivery of his reaction.

Quote

Every other person I asked, said that living together before marriage is the only way to know if they would be sexually comparable.

The acceptance of pre-marital sex is something that I think is probably the predominant view within society today, whether straight or gay.  (I'm sure a quick Google search would probably confirm that).  I don't think that's an issue that's unique to gay couples.

Quote

It would seem that being chaste is something that would never be an idea that would fly in any way.

In my experience, that would probably depend on who you speak with... but I agree, that attitude is the minority view, regardless of sexual orientation, but I don't think any of us would be surprise to confirm that it's likely to be at far lower rates within the LGBT community than in the straight one.

Quote

So something that would be comparable to Church doctrine.

Also something that could lead to Excommuntion, and a charge that the Church was never serious about.

I'm not sure I follow what you mean by the above sentences... Could you clarify for me?

Quote

Also did you see the movie I spoke of, and the blowback he founder received, and that was about safe sex.

No, I haven't watched "The Normal Heart" yet. When I do, I will let you know.  The AIDS epidemic certainly did force the LGBT community to take a hard look at curbing unsafe sex practices.  With the disease not longer being terminal due to it becoming a manageable chronic condition, complacency is unfortunately setting in and unsafe sex practices are on the rise again among younger gay men--an issue many within the LGBT community are attempting to address.

Quote

It would seem that Mormonism and Christianity will never come agreement with.

Not sure I follow what you mean above, but if you mean that Mormonism and Christianity are unlikely to ever agree with promiscuity (safe or not), I would agree.

Quote

When I was in the Bishopric, both conselors had gay children. But never once did the Bishop ever say anything negative about our children, and only admonished us to love them unconditionally.

That is wonderful advice and I am grateful that your bishop encouraged unconditional love and avoided negativity.  I have known many such good-hearted people, including many active and devout Latter-day Saints.

Quote

The Church is not the problem, it is the hatred targeted at the Church. It problem as I see it is that everyone wants us to deny our doctrine and the scriptures, and adopt the ways of the world.

I suppose whether or not the Church is the problem is a matter of perspective, both of the values of the speaker as well as a question of what the nature of the alleged problem is.  For example, from my perspective, the Church's involvement in politics advocating that governments should refuse to recognize civil marriage for same-sex couples is a major problem on multiple fronts, both as a violation of civil rights regarding the right to marry, due process, equal protection, and as a matter of religious freedom for Faiths like mine that condone marital commitments for same-sex couples.  Additionally, the church's recently-announced policy regarding children of married same-sex couples was initially VERY problematic for my own children (the clarification helped some, but hasn't alleviated much of the stress and alienation the children and I have experienced, given their inability to understand nuance that depends on a more mature understanding of the issues involved.)

That being said, I agree that extreme hatred towards the church, especially when expressed in unhealthy ways, is also often problematic, especially when it results in violations of law.

Regarding the perception that others wishing you would "deny [your] doctrine and the scriptures" in adopting a more gay inclusive stance... I'm not sure I see that as "a problem" so much as I see that as simply the way all of us, as humans, feel when confronted with values that conflict with our own.  For example, you may wish your daughter would "deny her sexual orientation" and choose different choices than she has.  LDS missionaries dedicate two years attempting to convert others to altering their view of the world in favor of an LDS one.

So... the idea that others "want" or "hope" or exert various levels of attempting to convince us to change seems common, regardless of our views.  Would you agree...?

Quote

So what are we to do, abandon all we believe at the cost of our soul, and the soul of our faith? I love my daughter will all my heart, she makes me laugh more than any other...but what am I to do. When she comes over almost every Sunday she finds a way to insult my other married children, because they are in traditional marriages. There was a blowup because my youngest and his wife had to move back in...she did not want them having sex in "her bed" that she left behind...she said,she wanted to keep it (even though she lives with her girlfriend that she will marry in November. We moved it out of her room, and the day after she got upset she put it on EBay (or what ever people sell on these days) to be sold. Her hatred for the Church and for Christ grows daily, but when she is sick she comes to me for blessings everything she gets sick or scared. I sometimes feel like I am in a nightmare. So tell me, because you are always truthful and straight with me...is there any chance that if the Chuch were to adopt SSM, will gay persons adopt the commandments and rules for others seeking Temple marriage?

Well...what are you to do, abandon all you believe at what you believe is the cost of your soul, and the soul of your faith?  No, not in my opinion.  As I (and others) have said elsewhere, I don't expect my LDS family to abandon their beliefs in accepting my husband and I.  I hope that we may all find a way to learn to get along in love and support, despite our differences of belief, and without either side having to abandon those values which we hold most dear.  That means finding some level of compromise... of avoiding certain topics of discussion, incendiary or accusatory comments... of striving to live peaceably, avoiding certain behaviors when around one another (my husband and I refrain from expressions of physical affection in front of my LDS-averse siblings, for example... We bow our heads and fold our arms at meal prayers, and kneel with the family for family prayer in the evenings... we don't stay at Mom's house when the whole family comes to town for family reunions--thus avoiding the problem of sleeping together under Mom's roof... etc.).  My husband is also a former member (and an RM, former bishop, etc. who still sings at many LDS friends' and families' funerals), so our shared understanding of LDS culture and practice has made our ability to maintain loving and respectful relationships with our families.  My mother--AS uncompromisingly devoted and devout and committed to the church as ANY woman you're ever likely to meet--has embraced my husband as one of her own, and she introduces him to her friends and acquaintances as her son-in-law.  We know her beliefs about marriage and her concept of the eternal family, and we don't challenge her or ask her to change her beliefs.  She knows we know her beliefs and is grateful we don't ask her to change them, just as she doesn't expect us to change ours and just as we are grateful that she embraces and accepts my husband, as well as his children.

Your relationship with your daughter is painful, and I am sorry that she is hurting, and that she causes you sorrow.  From my perspective, it's entirely appropriate for you to set boundaries within your own home--boundaries that don't allow any of your children to verbally attack one another, to argue, to contend one with another.  It's entirely appropriate for you to request that your daughter and any of her paramours respect the rules of your home, including abstaining from sexual activity.  As a parent and a homeowner, you set the rules, and don't need to alter your beliefs. 

Regarding your final question: If (I'd say 'when') the Church were to adopt SSM, then yes... just like our straight counterparts, some gay men (namely, those that chose to convert to and remain active LDS members) would adopt the commandments and rules for others seeking Temple marriage... And, just like our straight counterparts, most won't make that choice.  The population of the world that is LDS is less than 0.01%... But that 0.01% is committed to living the LDS gospel, including a portion of which are gay and lesbian, but currently abstinent.  If the Church were to adopt SSM, such would continue to be true for those gay members who have testimonies of the church and would wish to continue living by LDS standards, just as there are such members today.

Hope that helps...

Edited June 10, 2016 by Daniel2

[Eek!]

On ‎6‎/‎6‎/‎2016 at 2:38 PM, JAHS said:

I guess it's a matter of priority. We are told to first love God and second to love our neighbor. God always comes first. If according to our prophets that's what He wants us to do we do it.

I do not think it is either/or.  There can be no conflict between the first and second great commandments because God is not in conflict with Himself.  Remember that the first and second great commandments are both instructions to love.  Only an unloving misunderstanding of what God wills could produce the illusion that those two great commandments are in conflict. 

Edited June 12, 2016 by Eek!

[JAHS]

23 minutes ago, Eek! said:

I do not think it is either/or.  There can be no conflict between the first and second great commandments because God is not in conflict with Himself.  Remember that the first and second great commandments are both instructions to love.  Only an unloving misunderstanding of what God wills could produce the illusion that those two great commandments are in conflict. 

Abraham loved his son more than anything, yet God told him to sacrifice his son. God was number one on Abraham's list to love and obey so he obeyed the command to sacrifice his own son. I would say there was a great conflict going on in Abraham's mind and spirit over that one.

[Eek!]

9 minutes ago, JAHS said:

Abraham loved his son more than anything, yet God told him to sacrifice his son. God was number one on Abraham's list to love and obey so he obeyed the command to sacrifice his own son. I would say there was a great conflict going on in Abraham's mind and spirit over that one.

God never actually intended for Abraham to kill his son, even though it sure looked that way for a while.   But note that the first and second great commandments both won out in the end. 

[JAHS]

9 minutes ago, Eek! said:

God never actually intended for Abraham to kill his son

But Abraham didn't know that; yet he did it anyway. And yes the first and second did both come through in the end but as the scripture says:
"Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets." (Matthew 22:37-40)

The second one is "like unto it" but it is still the second one; not the first. I would not say they are in conflict, but they do still have a priority as numbers one and two. If we love God and obey His commandments first, we will naturally have a love for everyone, including lgbt members, without disobeying His commandments.

 

[The Nehor]

On 6/9/2016 at 9:50 AM, california boy said:

So what is left for your daughter to choose from.  Does it matter one iota whether she desecrates her body from head to toe with tattoo?  Nope.  Does it matter to God if she has one lover or a hundred or a thousand?  Nope.  Does it matter if she enters into one marriage or a hundred?  Nope.  Does it matter if your daughter becomes a prostitute?  Nope.  Does it matter if your daughter becomes a porn actor?  Nope.   If your daughter crosses that well defined line and seeks to find someone to share her life with, than ALL the judgements of God come upon her.  I think it is safe to say, that she has crossed that line.  She wants love in her life.  She wants companionship.  And she knows she is going to hell for acting on those very basic human needs instilled in all of us by God. So her behavior spins out of control because the church condemns her sin of loving another more than any other person.  She would literally have to kill someone to be under more condemnation from God and from the church.  (Actually, I think a murderer's children can still be baptized.  So I guess she is at the very bottom of all sins.)

You are conflating Church policy and God's thoughts. I think it is a little odd to say that God does not care about any distinctions between sins. Church policies are the general rule and some lines in the sand but God does not operate by those and the idea that God does not care whether a lesbian is in multiple unhealthy and self-degrading relationships or one where happiness is found is unfair and suggests he has written off that daughter. I do not believe in such a God. The idea that all sexual sins are created equal is also false. Joseph Smith himself repudiated that doctrine.

It is also worth noting the Savior said that the quisling tax collectors and prostitutes would enter the kingdom of heaven before the chief priests and elders would. Unless they were all closet adulterers I do not believe in the hierarchy of sins. We are told denying the Holy Ghost is unforgiveable, murder is hard to repent of, and that whatever sin Corianton participated in was not far from murder. God will factor in much more then our leaders can and there will be unexpected mercies waiting for us at the Last Day. Right now we see in part and use the Church's policies to navigate through this life.

But what everyone does, why they do it, and how they do it always matter to God. He knows quite a bit about it. After all, he bled for all those pains and sorrows.

[Eek!]

9 minutes ago, JAHS said:

"Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets." (Matthew 22:37-40)

Thanks for bringing these scriptures up again.   I see no evidence that Jesus would separate the first two commandments from one another, especially since he was only asked for one to begin with so bringing up the second was his idea; he specifies that the second is "like unto" the first; and then he goes on to emphasize that "on these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets." 

9 minutes ago, JAHS said:

The second one is "like unto it" but it is still the second one; not the first. I would not say they are in conflict, but they do still have a priority as numbers one and two. If we love God and obey His commandments first, we will naturally have a love for everyone, including lgbt members, without disobeying His commandments.

Follow along, this is interesting. 

In the 10th chapter of Luke we have someone who KNOWS THE FIRST TWO COMMANDMENTS BY HEART, who even recites them to Jesus.  But this guy has an agenda - he wants to JUSTIFY NOT KEEPING the second commandment, he wants to still exclude some people, probably for religious reasons.  Here is the text of that exchange:

²⁵ And, behold, a certain lawyer stood up, and tempted him, saying, Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?

²⁶ He said unto him, What is written in the law? how readest thou?

²⁷ And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself.

²⁸ And he said unto him, Thou hast answered right: this do, and thou shalt live.

²⁹ But he, willing to justify himself, said unto Jesus, And who is my neighbor?

So this lawyer thinks he has found a technicality that justifies him in excluding some people from those the second commandment tells him to love as himself.  Apparently these would be people that his religion looks down on, judging by the characters Jesus introduces in his reply.to make his point.  So let's finish the story:

"³⁰ And Jesus answering said, A certain man went down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell among thieves, which stripped him of his raiment, and wounded him, and departed, leaving him half dead.

³¹ And by chance there came down a certain priest that way: and when he saw him, he passed by on the other side.

³² And likewise a Levite, when he was at the place, came and looked on him, and passed by on the other side.

³³ But a certain Samaritan, as he journeyed, came where he was: and when he saw him, he had compassion on him,

³⁴ And went to him, and bound up his wounds, pouring in oil and wine, and set him on his own beast, and brought him to an inn, and took care of him.

³⁵ And on the morrow when he departed, he took out two pence, and gave them to the host, and said unto him, Take care of him; and whatsoever thou spendest more, when I come again, I will repay thee.

³⁶ Which now of these three, thinkest thou, was neighbour unto him that fell among the thieves?

³⁷ And he said, He that shewed mercy on him. Then said Jesus unto him, Go, and do thou likewise.

So in the parable, it is the religious leaders who have the wrong perception of what the Second Commandment means.  And it is tone of those they look down on the most and exclude, here a Samaritan but in our day it could just as well be a gay man, who is the one who gets it and acts accordingly. 

Point being, looking for excuses to justify excluding people from the injunction of the Second Commandment (imo whether in thought, word or deed) is just as much an error today as it was back then.  Rather than using technicalities to justify exclusion, we are called to show mercy. 

 

 

 

[JAHS]

2 hours ago, Eek! said:

Point being, looking for excuses to justify excluding people from the injunction of the Second Commandment (imo whether in thought, word or deed) is just as much an error today as it was back then.  Rather than using technicalities to justify exclusion, we are called to show mercy. 

But we are not talking technicalities here; rather important doctrinal principles. God can not condone sin. Homosexual relations is a sin. Same sex marriage is a sin and always will be. The man who was attacked did not commit any sin.  Our prophets who speak for God have been inspired by Him to treat the situation the way they have done. We can still love and support LGBT individuals without condoning the sin or changing important doctrinal principles.
 

Edited June 13, 2016 by JAHS

[Storm Rider]

I remain convinced that to demonstrate love for anyone, LGBT or not, is on an individual basis.  Any attempt to recognize a group, or sympathize with a social entity, distorts our love for humanity and becomes a political position beyond which the Gospel cannot go.  

I have long heard the refrain of the two great commandments, but those that most often use that teaching in the absence of understanding.  The two great commandments as found in scripture are:

•  37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
•  38 This is the first and great commandment.
•  39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
•  40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

First, to love God is to follow his commandments and to be totally focused on him.  Anyone that professes to love God and blatantly ignores God's teachings is not a disciple of Jesus Christ.  They create their own god to follow and he is not the God of Israel.  The second is limited to our treatment of our fellow man.  To love someone does not, and never has, been interpreted as to accept all their sins.  We ignore their sins because we acknowledge that they are sinners as we ourselves are sinners.  Should an individual wish to join the saints they will willingly, sincerely to open to following God's teachings and his prophets.  If one of us chooses to no longer follow God's teachings or his prophets then that individual, should (s)he persist in rejecting obedience to God is put outside of the body of the saints.  They may return upon repentance, but it is as it was at first, by their own will.

The people of God do not accept any sin as acceptable.  Jesus asked of his disciples to be perfect as God is perfect.  We are perfected through Christ and God's tolerance of our sin is zero.  That is the meaning, the value, the import of the Atonement.  It is through Jesus' blood that we are cleansed from our sins regardless of how small or how heinous they are.  

Rejecting sin is not ceasing to love our fellow man. 

[Tacenda]

On 6/9/2016 at 8:45 AM, rodheadlee said:

They do these things out of love not hate. To try to avoid the consequences of these sins for the nations and the people individually.  Helaman touches on this in Chapter 5:

2 For as their laws and their governments were established by the voice of the people, and they who chose evil were more numerous than they who chose good, therefore they were ripening for destruction, for the laws had become corrupted.

  3 Yea, and this was not all; they were a stiffnecked people, insomuch that they could not be governed by the law nor justice, save it were to their destruction.

Have you read the Cardston Temple Prophecy? It was written by a Quaker lady after visiting our Temple in Cardston many moons ago. It could be profoundly accurate and it is not a pretty picture. It could be avoided by serving the God (Jesus Christ) of this land. http://www.reliefmine.com/articles/dreams-a-visions/59-dreams-a-visions/93-the-cardston-temple-vision-world-war-iii

Isn't there words in the BoM to the effect that if we don't serve the God of this Land that he will remove us? That he will remove His protection of us from being desrtoyed by other peoples? I certainly believe Mexico is included in these prophecies along with the USA. I don't have time to look up that reference in the BoM (off to work) perhaps someone else could..

I really hope there are no gays reading this.  Rodheadlee, why did you even go there?

[The Nehor]

4 hours ago, Eek! said:

So in the parable, it is the religious leaders who have the wrong perception of what the Second Commandment means.  And it is tone of those they look down on the most and exclude, here a Samaritan but in our day it could just as well be a gay man, who is the one who gets it and acts accordingly. 

Point being, looking for excuses to justify excluding people from the injunction of the Second Commandment (imo whether in thought, word or deed) is just as much an error today as it was back then.  Rather than using technicalities to justify exclusion, we are called to show mercy. 

I think the more important element is that while we love God unreservedly we love our neighbor as ourselves. How do you love yourself? In that I think I find how to deal with both saints and sinners or, more often, combos of both.

[rodheadlee]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

I really hope there are no gays reading this.  Rodheadlee, why did you even go there?

Need you ask? It's not just the gays, it's all of us. Look around you. Sticking your head in the sand is not going to help.My point was I perceive the Prophet is motivated by love, not hate. 

[Tacenda]

8 minutes ago, rodheadlee said:

Need you ask? It's not just the gays, it's all of us. Look around you. Sticking your head in the sand is not going to help.My point was I perceive the Prophet is motivated by love, not hate. 

I guess I am not seeing what you mean, sorry.