Is there a place in the Plan of Happiness for gays?

[california boy]

I hesitate to start yet another gay thread, but on the advice of Calm, I will do just that very thing.  This started out with a conversation between SMAC and myself.  It seemed to get to the point where we were both so frustrated with what each of us were saying that it became almost impossible to continue.  Yet, I think we both sincerely wanted to understand the other persons point of view.  So we agreed to start at the very beginning and take it very slow.  Not ask a host of questions in one post that require a lot of different agreements to be understood.  I am not sure if this experiment will work, but I think it is worth the effort.  All are welcome to participate.  But this thread is going to be kept very narrow.  We won't move on until most people agree on a point.  Other points will be ignored until the point before us can either be agreed to, or all parties agree to disagree and we move on. I am not sure where this is going.  And I am not sure this will be successful.  But I think it is worth the try.  I hope you will to

So we started with this first statement.  Everyone that participates in this thread has to agree to this statement.  If they don' then this is not the thread for you.  Here is the statement:

• I feel like before I even ask or address any question, I need to be crystal clear about one thing.  I understand the church's position is no sex ever if you are gay.  The church believes this is immoral behavior.  I completely respect that position and I have never and will never ask or demand that the church change it's position.  Let's all this an immutable statement. It is against the doctrine of the church to have sex with the same gender under ANY situation.  I promise not to ask or demand that the church change their position.  And I ask that you not accuse me of asking or demanding that the church change it's position on this part of the Law of Chastity.   Can we agree with that?  Are we good so far?

[california boy]

SMAC has agreed with the statement on the other thread, so I am going to ask a second statement.  Perhaps  this is as far as we will get, but here goes.

Is it against the Law of Chastity according to Mormon beliefs for a gay person to have romantic feelings?  Does that enter into breaking the Law of Chastity.  What do you think?

My position is that it does not.  Having romantic feelings for another person whether same sex or opposite sex is not against the Law of Chastity.  There is no sin in that.  This question is only having romantic feelings.  It does not include dating, kissing, hugging etc.  We will see if there is agreement on this question first.   I am interested to hear anyone's views.

[rongo]

I agree with this first statement, and therefore, in answer to the title question, my answer is that there is a place in the celestial kingdom for gays who keep the law of chastity as defined by the Church. There is a place in the lower kingdoms for gays who do not live the law of chastity (and are in this state when reaching judgment). 

There is a place for all of God's spirit children, except for the sons of perdition, in a degree of glory. But, gays (and non-gays) who do not live the law of chastity and enter judgment with this unresolved through the atonement, cannot live in the celestial kingdom, or eternal life in Heavenly Father's presence. 

Are we still good so far?

 

[california boy]

12 minutes ago, rongo said:

I agree with this first statement, and therefore, in answer to the title question, my answer is that there is a place in the celestial kingdom for gays who keep the law of chastity as defined by the Church. There is a place in the lower kingdoms for gays who do not live the law of chastity (and are in this state when reaching judgment). 

There is a place for all of God's spirit children, except for the sons of perdition, in a degree of glory. But, gays (and non-gays) who do not live the law of chastity and enter judgment with this unresolved through the atonement, cannot live in the celestial kingdom, or eternal life in Heavenly Father's presence. 

Are we still good so far?

 

We are not there yet. There are some other questions that have to be asked first.  That is what this thread is about.  Taking it slowly and not leaping to the end conclusion.  Thanks for your input.  I  hope you have the patience to see where this will go.  Please keep reading and posting.  And please remember that we have already agreed that according to Mormon belief, gays that have sexual relations with anyone of the same sex is breaking the Law of Chastity.  This is a discussion ONLY about gays living the law of chastity.  I don't want to confuse things here.  They are two separate issues.  So your comment about judgement of those not living the Law of Chastity is not part of the discussion.  I hope you can understand what we are trying to do here.

Doc you think it is against the Law of Chastity for a gay person to have romantic feelings for someone of the same sex?  I didn't see your answer there.  I am interested in what you have to say.

[Freedom]

We all have feelings that must be controlled. Homosexuality does not hold a special place. There are countless temptations that, if acted upon, are against the commandments. The task is to control our emotions and our passions. Having it is not a sin, dwelling upon it and acting upon it is. 

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

I hesitate to start yet another gay thread, but on the advice of Calm, I will do just that very thing.  This started out with a conversation between SMAC and myself.  It seemed to get to the point where we were both so frustrated with what each of us were saying that it became almost impossible to continue.  Yet, I think we both sincerely wanted to understand the other persons point of view.  So we agreed to start at the very beginning and take it very slow.  Not ask a host of questions in one post that require a lot of different agreements to be understood.  I am not sure if this experiment will work, but I think it is worth the effort.  All are welcome to participate.  But this thread is going to be kept very narrow.  We won't move on until most people agree on a point.  Other points will be ignored until the point before us can either be agreed to, or all parties agree to disagree and we move on. I am not sure where this is going.  And I am not sure this will be successful.  But I think it is worth the try.  I hope you will to

So we started with this first statement.  Everyone that participates in this thread has to agree to this statement.  If they don' then this is not the thread for you.  Here is the statement:

• I feel like before I even ask or address any question, I need to be crystal clear about one thing.  I understand the church's position is no sex ever if you are gay.  The church believes this is immoral behavior.  I completely respect that position and I have never and will never ask or demand that the church change it's position.  Let's all this an immutable statement. It is against the doctrine of the church to have sex with the same gender under ANY situation.  I promise not to ask or demand that the church change their position.  And I ask that you not accuse me of asking or demanding that the church change it's position on this part of the Law of Chastity.   Can we agree with that?  Are we good so far?

Yes, of course.  Moreover, even if someone has same gender sexual activity, repentance is always an option -- here or hereafter.  As to the major question, "Is there a place in the Plan of Happiness for gays?"  The answer is also "yes, of course."  I cannot think of any reason why not.  Having same-sex attraction is a major challenge for someone committed to the LDS faith, and God always takes the various human challenges we face into powerful consideration in all aspects of his Plan of Salvation.  That is my belief anyhow.  Others may take a more taciturn and exclusivist view.

[california boy]

27 minutes ago, Freedom said:

We all have feelings that must be controlled. Homosexuality does not hold a special place. There are countless temptations that, if acted upon, are against the commandments. The task is to control our emotions and our passions. Having it is not a sin, dwelling upon it and acting upon it is. 

I think this is why this issue is so difficult to talk to Mormons about.  It seems like it is almost impossible to stay on topic with this issue.  THIS thread is not about acting on romantic feelings. We all agree that the church believes acting on those feelings is a sin. That is another issue for another thread. The only question being asked is "is it a sin and against the Law of Chastity for a gay person to have romantic feelings towards someone of the same sex?"  I appreciate your thoughts.  And I agree with you.  Having romantic feelings is not a sin.  

I wold like to ask you about the second part of your answer.  Is it against the Law of Chastity to dwell on romantic feelings?  If a teenage girl likes a boy in her class, is it a sin and against the Law of Chastity for her to dwell on those feelings?  Should she banish all thoughts of that boy from her thoughts?  What if there is a gay teen in that same classroom.  Is it a sin and against the Law of Chastity to have romantic thoughts on the one he feels an attraction to?  (Once again, we are not talking about acting on those attractions for either person).  If neither person acts on that attraction, has a sin been committed?

[california boy]

25 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Yes, of course.  Moreover, even if someone has same gender sexual activity, repentance is always an option -- here or hereafter.  As to the major question, "Is there a place in the Plan of Happiness for gays?"  The answer is also "yes, of course."  I cannot think of any reason why not.  Having same-sex attraction is a major challenge for someone committed to the LDS faith, and God always takes the various human challenges we face into powerful consideration in all aspects of his Plan of Salvation.  That is my belief anyhow.  Others may take a more taciturn and exclusivist view.

Once again, I am going to ask those participating in this thread to not talk about sexual activity.  That is for another thread.  I think talking about it often confuses the issue that I would like to discuss in this thread.  We have already taken that off the table.  We all agree that the church teaches that any sexual relationships between the same sex is against the law of chastity.

And once again, I ask for your patience.  Before we can answer the question  about if there is a place for a gay person in the Plan of Salvation, we first have to see if we can agree on some basic premises.  I am not quite clear on the question that we are trying to see if there is agreement on, so I will ask you directly.

Doc you think it is against the Law of Chastity for a gay person to have romantic feelings for someone of the same sex?  I didn't see your answer there.  I am interested in what you have to say.

[waveslider]

I think the answer to this question can only come from Jesus himself. He is the only one who can judge. Not even Father in Heaven will judge us: "For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son:" John 5:22. That said I think there is a very thin line, and only the person with the feelings can know that, as that person discerns how much the Holy Spirit is with him or her, or if it leaves during any particular thoughts. Just my two cents worth anyway.

[Alan]

5 hours ago, california boy said:

 

  I understand the church's position is no sex ever if you are gay.

I do not agree that this is the case.

A homosexual can have sex if he or she marries someone of the opposite sex.

 

[Bobbieaware]

4 hours ago, california boy said:

I think this is why this issue is so difficult to talk to Mormons about.  It seems like it is almost impossible to stay on topic with this issue.  THIS thread is not about acting on romantic feelings. We all agree that the church believes acting on those feelings is a sin. That is another issue for another thread. The only question being asked is "is it a sin and against the Law of Chastity for a gay person to have romantic feelings towards someone of the same sex?"  I appreciate your thoughts.  And I agree with you.  Having romantic feelings is not a sin.  

I wold like to ask you about the second part of your answer.  Is it against the Law of Chastity to dwell on romantic feelings?  If a teenage girl likes a boy in her class, is it a sin and against the Law of Chastity for her to dwell on those feelings?  Should she banish all thoughts of that boy from her thoughts?  What if there is a gay teen in that same classroom.  Is it a sin and against the Law of Chastity to have romantic thoughts on the one he feels an attraction to?  (Once again, we are not talking about acting on those attractions for either person).  If neither person acts on that attraction, has a sin been committed?

I believe I see where you're going and here is the answere: While we are in this pre-resurrection testing-phase of existence, known in the scriptures as the state of mortal probation, it's the design of the Lord that we be tested through the lusts of the fallen flesh and the ungodly desires inherent in the fallen nature.

 25 And we will prove them herewith, to see if they will do all things whatsoever the Lord their God shall command them; (Abraham 3)

The test of mortal probationary obedience would be rendered meaningless and ineffectual unless the temptations to violate God's will could entice the human mind with enough persuasive power that one might seriously consider going ahead and violating God's will after carefully weighing out all the options (think of the Savior's struggles with obedience to his Father's will in Gethsemane). By divine design, the test of  the mortal probation is meant to bring about many crises of conscience throughout life, crises where the only way to remain faithful is to humble oneself to the dust and to plead to God for outpourings of spiritual strength not yet attained.

12 Blessed is the man that endureth temptation: for when he is tried, he shall receive the crown of life, which the Lord hath promised to them that love him. (James 1)

But it must be understood that this phase, where one has a difficult time seriously struggling against the lusts and desires of the fallen nature, is meant to be transitory. By consistently complying with God's will through faithful obedience, eventually the enticing power of the temptations begin to diminish because the naturally rebellious fallen nature of man no longer predominates. What happens is that fallen nature, and its susceptibility to be enticed by the lusts and desires of the flesh, is crucified (Paul's expression) and a whole new man with a holy spiritual nature arises in its stead. Sincere desires and actions to comply with God's will through  the power of the Spirit are eventually rewarded with a new nature and will that is like unto the holy nature of God himself.

11 Therefore they (the repentant holy men and women of the past) were called after this holy order, and were sanctified, and their garments were washed white through the blood of the Lamb.

 12 Now they, after being sanctified by the Holy Ghost, having their garments made white, being pure and spotless before God, could not look upon sin save it were with abhorrence; and there were many, exceedingly great many, who were made pure and entered into the rest of the Lord their God. (Alma13)

So, as you can see, the goal is to be spiritually transformed by the power of the Holy Ghost until those things that formerly enticed us to violate God's will become abhorrent, loosing all their former allure. These principles pertain to the inappropriate desire to feel romantic impulses toward those of the same sex as much as they do to any other aspect of the struggle against the enticements of the fallen nature of man. It is God's design and will that the carnal mind of man be slain and permanently replaced by the very mind and will of God himself, through the sanctifying power of the Holy Ghost.

Edited July 15, 2016 by Bobbieaware

[Maedros]

Being in love is not synonymous with sexual attraction, they two different emotions - in marriage we are able to express both

7 hours ago, california boy said:

My position is that it does not.  Having romantic feelings for another person whether same sex or opposite sex is not against the Law of Chastity.  There is no sin in that.  This question is only having romantic feelings.  It does not include dating, kissing, hugging etc.  We will see if there is agreement on this question first.   I am interested to hear anyone's views.

I can agree with you on this - love and sexual attraction are two different emotions so to feel love or be in love with someone even of the same sex is not a sin because the feeling of love itself or being in love is pure. It is only when sex-preoccupies-thought that the violation begins in all cases.

Edited July 15, 2016 by Maedros

[Storm Rider]

Is it a sin to have romantic feelings?  This can be complex and can quickly enter into what is clearly sin.  I looked at a few scriptures to better explain my position:

Matthew 15:19
   19 For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies:
Matthew 5:28
   28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.
Mark 7:21
   21 For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders,
2 Peter 2:14
   14 Having eyes full of adultery, and that cannot cease from sin; beguiling unstable souls: an heart they have exercised with covetous practices; cursed children:

As with most things I think it is important that we make sure we have defined what we mean by romantic feelings.  If we are talking simply strong emotions of love that does not have a sexual component then romantic feelings are acceptable.  We each, I suspect, have had close friends of the same gender that are very enjoyable to be around; we want them in our lives because they make it better, happier.  However, the feelings of close friendship are not often misconstrued with romantic feelings.  

If we are talking in the context of what we generally recognize as romantic feelings - we tingle when they touch us, we want to be in a sexual relationship  or at least leading to such a close bond, then the answer is clearly that romantic feelings of this nature are sinful.  Having said this, I have a hard time defining at what point they are sinful other than the obvious.  As I review the scriptures above it is apparent that thoughts and feelings that we often associate with coming from the heart can be evil and should be rejected by a disciple of Christ.  

"Having eyes full of adultery" is an easy phrase to understand and recognize its sinful nature.  I think this applies to individuals with homosexual feelings.  

As I read this thread and prior to writing this post I recognized the need to differentiate between individuals and sexual behaviors.  In this context an individual is not gay - an individual is an individual with gay feelings are is attracted to members of their own gender.  Accepting this recognition allows for a deeper understanding of being a disciple of Christ and the need to sacrifice our passions, our ego when we accept to be disciples of Jesus Christ.  That sacrifice is the same for all that come to Christ.  The "cost" of that sacrifice may appear greater for some, but I think that is debatable.  If we personally place no attachment on anything that comes between us and the Savior then there is no cost.  However, if we are as the rich man that was asked to give away all that he had then the cost, any cost, is too much. 

This cost applies to a person with SSA just as it applies to anyone else.  What is it that we value more than Jesus Christ and allows us to say "I cannot" and be left in our sins.

[ERMD]

We all have thoughts and inclinations, and they must be kept within the bounds the Lord has set.  Dwelling on thoughts, for either gender or orientation can lead to lust, and as the saying goes, "As a man thinketh in his heart, so is he."

As Elder Holland said, "Like thieves in the night, unwelcome thoughts can and do seek entrance to our minds. But we don’t have to throw open the door, serve them tea and crumpets, and then tell them where the silverware is kept!"

God loves all His children, and He wants us all back.   

When I served as  bishop, I asked a group of youth once if someone with SSA could hold a temple recommend.  The answer of course, is yes.  It led to a very interesting discussion, and I think they all came away thinking a little differently.

 

Edited July 15, 2016 by ERMD

[CV75]

7 hours ago, california boy said:

It is against the doctrine of the church to have sex with the same gender under ANY situation.

I would modify that statement to "It is against the doctrine of the church that to knowingly, willingly and gladly have sex with the same gender under ANY situation is not sin."

[ERMD]

4 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I would modify that statement to "It is against the doctrine of the church that to knowingly, willingly and gladly have sex with the same gender under ANY situation is not sin."

 

 I'm not smart enough to figure that out.

[Duncan]

If nobody lusted would any of us even be here? we'd all still be up in Heaven! Christ has power to save all people so I believe that there is a place for Gay people in the plan of Salvation. I am not too concerned about gay people and how God will deal with them but what I am concerned about is us non gay people giving them a reason to believe that they can be saved, basically setting a good example and have them want God in their life. I've said this before if we truly want to be exalted and have additional children how can we love them if they are gay or whatever if we don't love our brothers and sisters down here, right now? Would we love a gay child any less than their straight brothers and sisters? I hope not! I see it as a process, line upon line. I don't know how repentance for sexuality works gay to non gay, whereas here in mortality we are dealing with repentance for behaviours of sexuality but be an example!

[Maedros]

15 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

"Having eyes full of adultery" is an easy phrase to understand and recognize its sinful nature.  I think this applies to individuals with homosexual feelings.  

Great post - I just want to comment on the quoted sentences for clarification, I don't think this statement by Peter applies to homosexuals exclusively but to all instances of sexual lust; also, it explains what I said before that looking on a woman only becomes a sin when you lust after her or preoccupation-with-sex-in-thought. I love my wife and when I 'look on her' it is with a deep sense of admiration and appreciation (romantic feelings/love); sometimes I 'look on her' with the desire to 'know her' (sexual attraction) and because we're legally and lawfully married the latter emotions are not sinful. Those with same sex attraction who have romantic feelings are not committing a sin if they resist sexual attraction but their attraction albeit feelings of love is unlawful still, because the laws of God only permit romantic attraction between male and female but it is not a sin (I believe) to be a homosexual but it is easier to commit sin if one is homosexual.

[CV75]

7 hours ago, california boy said:

SMAC has agreed with the statement on the other thread, so I am going to ask a second statement.  Perhaps  this is as far as we will get, but here goes.

Is it against the Law of Chastity according to Mormon beliefs for a gay person to have romantic feelings?  Does that enter into breaking the Law of Chastity.  What do you think?

My position is that it does not.  Having romantic feelings for another person whether same sex or opposite sex is not against the Law of Chastity.  There is no sin in that.  This question is only having romantic feelings.  It does not include dating, kissing, hugging etc.  We will see if there is agreement on this question first.   I am interested to hear anyone's views.

Romantic feelings break the law of chastity when they become inappropriate. “The law of chastity requires that our thoughts as well as our actions be pure.” https://www.lds.org/manual/gospel-principles/chapter-39-the-law-of-chastity?lang=eng&_r=1

 

I would say that “inappropriate” or “impure” means the thoughts, feelings and intentions entail having sex with anyone of the same gender, or with someone not of the same gender outside of marriage, especially when thoughts are welcomed and entertained. Dating, kissing and hugging that foster an erotic response in this direction would likewise be inappropriate.

With temptation, the impure or inappropriate thought can be offset with an appropriate or pure thought, so a person can still harness the power of the better angels of his nature. When he does not do this, and entertains the impure at the expense of the pure, he becomes guilty of breaking the law.

No one knows the thoughts and intents of another, so this law is self-regulated to a high degree. The Lord is very patient with all of us!

[CV75]

18 minutes ago, ERMD said:

 I'm not smart enough to figure that out.

All I'm saying is that a victim, a dupe or an unaccountable person is not breaking the law of chastity, so as to address the "ANY situation" reference.

[ERMD]

7 minutes ago, CV75 said:

All I'm saying is that a victim, a dupe or an unaccountable person is not breaking the law of chastity, so as to address the "ANY situation" reference.

Got it!

[hope_for_things]

7 hours ago, california boy said:

• I feel like before I even ask or address any question, I need to be crystal clear about one thing.  I understand the church's position is no sex ever if you are gay.  The church believes this is immoral behavior.  I completely respect that position and I have never and will never ask or demand that the church change it's position.  Let's all this an immutable statement. It is against the doctrine of the church to have sex with the same gender under ANY situation.  I promise not to ask or demand that the church change their position.  And I ask that you not accuse me of asking or demanding that the church change it's position on this part of the Law of Chastity.   Can we agree with that?  Are we good so far?

First, I understand what you are trying to do with this statement, I just don't think you need to limit the church to this constraint.  History has shown that ANYTHING can change.  I think its arrogant for flawed and short sighted humans to assume otherwise, but I will respect your positioning for the purposes of this thread conversation.

Second, is there a plan of happiness for gays?  Yes, there is, and its not in the church today.  The church needs to change in order for gays to be happy.  Rolling back the November policy would be step #1, including removing the apostasy association.  Teaching members to be accepting and non judgmental would be #2.  The church could give gays callings and welcome them in Sunday worship.  The church could still stop short of allowing gay sealings in the temple, if they want to hold fast to that doctrine that the best kind of marriage is between opposite sex couples.  But teaching that monogamous gay relationships are a sin while at the same time teaching that members should love and accept gays, is not a workable solution.  Chastity should be emphasized as no sex outside marriage, and since gays can now marry, the church needs to get with the program and update the law.  Thats my opinion, I'm sure there are those who strongly disagree with me here.  

[Rain]

Some of the problem with the answers is that your question in the title is different than the narrow subject where you want to keep it.  If you want to keep on this line of questioning with other threads I would make sure they are the same. 

In answer to your question,  no, it is not a sin to have romantic feelings for the same sex.  

Because you expanded your question in a reply I figured I would answer it too - is it against the law of chastity to dwell on those feelings? 

If by dwell, someone means that romantic feelings are there for a long time,  but not welcomed, then no it isn't against the law of chastity. 

If by dwell, someone means to consiously entertain romantic feelings for the same sex then, by the spirit of the law, you are breaking the law. Now that isn't too say that consciously entertaining thoughts to hold the hand of a same sex person has the same gravitude of actually having sex. There is a whole lot more I could say on the matter,  but since you are wanting to keep things simple I won't. 

 

 

Edited July 15, 2016 by Rain

[rpn]

Of course people can feel intimate with people of their same sex.  In Europe men go around arm in arm all the time, in ways that in America would be seen as "acting gay".  People have crushes on school teachers and on college roommates (with whom they may try various sexual exploration, sometimes).  In many cases this is because they've never had an experience with loving another human being whom we know intimately.   (And for at least a subset of those who identify as gay,  figuring out that they can have romantic feelings about their same sex might lead them to think they are gay because they've no experience with --- and society argues against it -- that intense feelings for persons of your gender does not automatically and permanently result in your only being able to be considered gay.)   It is because they don't understand that intimate love is not always about sex, partly because our world makes everything about sexual acts, and people participate in such acts without any of the development of relationship that transform the sex into a sacrament within a marriage.

The way we talk, or don't, about homosexuality leaves little discussion or understanding that these kinds of explorations could simply be acting on intense intimate feelings without it being gay at all.   So the people in those circumstances claim gay or bisexuality.

I think it might have been Mitch, the exec sec in SF who said that he had discovered that his caring and deep friendships with the good men in his ward was enough emotionally for him to be able to live the law of chastity.  

Romantic feelings are not the same thing as lust.   Intimate emotional relationships are not the same thing as lust (though lots of people will tell you that at some point it can be very hard to keep those feelings in their proper place, and mostly doing so will require the intimate emotional relationship to end or at least to be less frequent or intense or to put some topics and interaction off limits).

(Yes, I appreciate that it might be rare for a man to understand all that, and few men have ever known another so well that they can understand how that would be, except for maybe with their fathers.   But that is less true in other societies than the US.)

[kllindley]

7 hours ago, california boy said:

SMAC has agreed with the statement on the other thread, so I am going to ask a second statement.  Perhaps  this is as far as we will get, but here goes.

Is it against the Law of Chastity according to Mormon beliefs for a gay person to have romantic feelings?  Does that enter into breaking the Law of Chastity.  What do you think?

My position is that it does not.  Having romantic feelings for another person whether same sex or opposite sex is not against the Law of Chastity.  There is no sin in that.  This question is only having romantic feelings.  It does not include dating, kissing, hugging etc.  We will see if there is agreement on this question first.   I am interested to hear anyone's views.

I appreciate your willingness to seek to understand.  

1) Are romantic feelings a sin?  No, I don't think so.  But between feeling and action is thought.  Thought is much more (though not entirely) subject to our agency.  So, I would make sure we are talking about purely a feeling rather than associated thoughts. 

2) Second, I think there is  a lot of understanding about the Mormon view of sexuality to be gained from the perspective shared by Wendy Ulrich that weakness is not a sin.  https://www.lds.org/ensign/2015/04/it-isnt-a-sin-to-be-weak?lang=eng    This doesn't mean we don't address the weakness and work to improve ourselves. 

3) I propose that before we go any farther in this conversation, it would be helpful to even step back and try to define what we mean by attraction.  Lest you think this is insulting or unnecessary,  There is a lot of nuance to that attraction evens means.  http://www.flirtingwithcuriosity.org/?p=185