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

[UtahTexan]

15 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Is it?  How are you so certain?  Can you give us something over and beyond your own very subjective metaphysical experiences?

since it has not happened yet, certainly you know better...

well...maybe not.  It is possible that you do not know that the future has not happened yet.  So, I can only say....I am pretty good on the past and present....but the future is beyond me.  However, typically, the Church delivers the revelation.  

[Calm]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

I think you may be looking at my comments in the wrong way.  I am not bothered by the sacrifice that is asked of those that are gay. 

You still are looking on it as a sacrifice and not a gift to be able to serve God by making his will become our own.

Anyone who looks on obedience as a sacrifice is going to have a harder time finding the ultimate eternal love we are promised by becoming one with God.

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

I don't know Shirley, but no I don't jest.  You post often about how uncertain things are and how we should follow our own paths, etc.  then you post things as if it is all certainty for you

which is it?

Certainty is a psychological state of mind.  I am nearly always certain about everything, because I think things through until I am certain.  Then I think things through, when another way of seeing presents itself, and become certain again.

Since we cannot know much about " the world" independent of our opinions, I formulate beliefs that work for me with certainty, and then revise them as needed to return to certainty.

Belief is all there is, and we often call that "knowledge" as if now it corresponds to the world and then "certainty" means something about the world. That is illusion- see my siggy, the Rorty quote.

Knowledge and certainty are psychological descriptions of how we feel about our beliefs and how we have constructed them 

[BCSpace]

On 7/16/2016 at 1:40 PM, Teancum said:

And your evidence for the a priori statement is just what?

The doctrine of the church on homosexuality for the former (the degrees of glory being kingdoms of God after all, requiring acceptance of Christ and his doctrine for entry), and the doctrine of the resurrection for the later (a genetic cause for homosexuality being a genetic aberration at most that would be corrected).

Edited July 18, 2016 by BCSpace
addendum

[BCSpace]

On 7/16/2016 at 1:42 PM, ALarson said:

You don't know that this is true.  

You can only believe this is how it is going to be. 

Why can't I know?  If I know LDS doctrine on homosexuality is true, I therefore know homosexuality won't be practiced in the kingdom of heaven nor will it be carried over in the resurrection if the cause if genetic.

[california boy]

6 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Think about this

We are the ONLY church which believes ANYONE will married in the afterlife.  Everyone else believes they will be "friends" or have associations, but will not be married.  Matthew 22:30 says this:

Most other Christians have a different interpretation of that scripture than we do- but every other group I know takes that to mean that there is no marriage in heaven.

I won't go into our interpretation now, but the bottom line is that EVEN WITH SSM as accepted by some other Christian groups, no one believes you would be married to your partner in heaven anyway.

AND it all depends on your interpretation of "heaven".  LDS believe that if you are NOT sealed, you will be- as this verse says - "as the angels of God in heaven"

All other faiths marry "Til death do we part" but not us!  And we are promised that the reward awaiting us in the lowest kingdom, most people would call "heaven" anyway.

I personally believe that gay people could be sealed to the opposite sex in the Celestial Kingdom as long as they strive to be righteous here, if they repent in the afterlife.  You HAVE been married to a woman and only you know how you would feel about that, but you do NOT know how you might feel about it in the resurrection.   I think that getting a new body which is perfect will correct many problems we might have with this one.

So yes, in my interpretation as I see it, you could certainly be in "heaven" in some kingdom- I am not your judge, have the opportunity to be sealed if you want that later.  You would not be married but know your companion on a friendship basis and be as close as you are now perhaps, considering the potential for human growth for others there.

So yes of course you have a place in the "Plan of Happiness"- it applies to all of us and only he judges us and I believe it will be a perfectly righteous judgment.

That's what I believe for what it's worth.  I hope it helps some.

 

Yes I have been married to a woman.  And this I know.  I don't ever desire to be married to a woman again.  Nothing against women, it is just something that at the time I really didn't have an interest in, but was doing solely because my church leaders told me it is what God wanted me to do, and made me a promise that if I did, I would no longer be attracted to guys.  Well we all know how that turned out.

Some say that when someone who is gay dies, then they become a different person.  They will no longer want to be with someone of the same sex.  They have no basis for making this claim any more that my church leaders making the EXACT same promise years ago did.  I would also have to some how wipe out a lifetime of love for my partner.  It would be a shell of me if that were true.  Yeah.  I don't really buy it.  Who we are, for good or for bad rises with us in the next life.  If we haven't conformed to what God wants us to become like on this earth, there is not some magical transformation that suddenly makes us what God wants us to be.  If that were true, there would be no point of this earth life.  My life goal no longer is to become straight.  My life goal is to become more Christ-like.  That is plenty for me to work on.  If the church teaches that if it is a requirement to get into the Celestial Kingdom, is to marry someone of the opposite sex, then by that very doctrine, they are teaching that there are no gays in the Celestial Kingdom.  

[california boy]

5 hours ago, Calm said:

You still are looking on it as a sacrifice and not a gift to be able to serve God by making his will become our own.

Anyone who looks on obedience as a sacrifice is going to have a harder time finding the ultimate eternal love we are promised by becoming one with God.

Well you are wrong about this as well.  I used to be so mad at God for making me gay.  I wanted it taken from me so badly, I will willing to do anything my church leaders told me to do.  I fasted and prayed then fasted and prayed again.  At some point, I got the same answer that Paul got.  It sufficeth me.  So for the first time in my life I accepted the fact that I was gay.  And a peace came over me that I had never experienced in my life before.  That peach has stayed with me and comforted me every since.

And now I have a totally different perspective.  I have learned so much about being judgmental, understand compassion and charity for the suffering of others.  I have learned to treat others with respect and dignity no matter where they are on this life's journey.  I have learned that the story is never over until it is over.  And that it doesn't end at death.  I have also learned that those that judge the most are the ones furtherest from God. and to not worry about what they think of someone, only worry about what God thinks of you.  I have learned that grand gestures are not what determine greatness, but every day gestures.  I have learned that we all carry burdens and I don't have any desire to trade burdens with anyone, but I can share and encourage and empathize with the burdens we all carry.  I have learned that spirituality is not confined to a church but to your soul. I believe that my being gay is as big of test for me as it is for my family, those around me and members of the church who don't even know me. It will teach them things about themselves that they never might have known.  Some in my family have said those very things to me.   I have learned patience and my time is not God's time.  I have learned how to love another person more than myself.  I have learned to connect with people rather than building a shell around myself.  Above all, I have learned what love is.

Being gay is not a curse, it is a blessing from God.  Perhaps that is why I cringe when others make promises to take away that gift from God.  It takes a lifetime to understand this gift.  Many give up and take another path.  Or maybe we all have to find our own path.  From where I am now, I thank God every day that He made me gay.  Perhaps that is why I am so unwilling to give that gift up in the next life.  

[Tacenda]

I'm glad I don't go by the plan of happiness way in the church to be happy. God's plan works well enough.

[Robert F. Smith]

On 7/15/2016 at 9:42 PM, NEDRA said:

Romantic kissing is clearly against the law of chastity, for opposite- or same-sex couples.

In my youth (I was a teen in the early 1980s), we were taught this quote from President Kimball:

 

“Even if timely courtship justifies the kiss, it should be a clean, decent, sexless one like the kiss between mother and son, or father and daughter.”

So, romantic kissing is the same as sexual intercourse (which is the only term used in the Law of Chastity).

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

Well you are wrong about this as well.  I used to be so mad at God for making me gay.  I wanted it taken from me so badly, I will willing to do anything my church leaders told me to do.  I fasted and prayed then fasted and prayed again.  At some point, I got the same answer that Paul got.  It sufficeth me.  So for the first time in my life I accepted the fact that I was gay.  And a peace came over me that I had never experienced in my life before.  That peach has stayed with me and comforted me every since.

And now I have a totally different perspective.  I have learned so much about being judgmental, understand compassion and charity for the suffering of others.  I have learned to treat others with respect and dignity no matter where they are on this life's journey.  I have learned that the story is never over until it is over.  And that it doesn't end at death.  I have also learned that those that judge the most are the ones furtherest from God. and to not worry about what they think of someone, only worry about what God thinks of you.  I have learned that grand gestures are not what determine greatness, but every day gestures.  I have learned that we all carry burdens and I don't have any desire to trade burdens with anyone, but I can share and encourage and empathize with the burdens we all carry.  I have learned that spirituality is not confined to a church but to your soul. I believe that my being gay is as big of test for me as it is for my family, those around me and members of the church who don't even know me. It will teach them things about themselves that they never might have known.  Some in my family have said those very things to me.   I have learned patience and my time is not God's time.  I have learned how to love another person more than myself.  I have learned to connect with people rather than building a shell around myself.  Above all, I have learned what love is.

Being gay is not a curse, it is a blessing from God.  Perhaps that is why I cringe when others make promises to take away that gift from God.  It takes a lifetime to understand this gift.  Many give up and take another path.  Or maybe we all have to find our own path.  From where I am now, I thank God every day that He made me gay.  Perhaps that is why I am so unwilling to give that gift up in the next life.  

Would you say, then, that you have somehow gone through the five stages of grief:   denial, anger, bargaining, depression and acceptance ?

[Calm]

2 hours ago, california boy said:

Well you are wrong about this as well.  

 

If you do not see what is being asked of gays as a sacrifice, then why do you use that word to label it?

Edited July 18, 2016 by Calm

[rongo]

I think this blog from a girl I sent on a mission in my former ward, and her gay husband, has a bearing on whether there is a place in the Plan of Happiness for gays. They would both resoundingly say, "Yes!"

http://beingoutisin.blogspot.com/2015/12/pilot.html

I was at their sealing, and they are expecting their first child in two months. I think that some would say this doesn't count, because he isn't living in a gay relationship and trying to navigate being active LDS, but if you read his explanations, he disagrees strongly. He identifies as gay, and always has been. 

[california boy]

4 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Would you say, then, that you have somehow gone through the five stages of grief:   denial, anger, bargaining, depression and acceptance ?

Interesting question.  I have never really thought about that.  But as I look back I would say that yes, I have gone through all of those stages.  Some lasted longer than others.  

However dealing with being gay is different than being angry with the way the church treats gays outside of the church.  I am still pretty angry about that and probably will be until church leaders quit trying to take away the civil rights of others.  In some ways, it is more difficult for me to accept the actions the church has taken against gay couples than it has been for me to deal with being gay.  Maybe because I always had this image that the church leaders were more fair then they turned out to be.  They, of course have every right to be as aggressive as they legally can against gay couples, but I strongly believe it is morally wrong to continue to work to deny others their civil rights.   The sooner they quit this political agenda, the sooner I can leave it alone.  I also think the no baptizing your children policy is wrong.  But at least that is not directed at those outside the church.  I just feel bad for those children.  I don't think it is always in their best interest.  

[california boy]

4 hours ago, Calm said:

If you do not see what is being asked of gays as a sacrifice, then why do you use that word to label it?

I think it is a sacrifice to not be allow any sexual contact for your entire life.  But I don't look at all sacrifices as being a bad thing. 

Edited July 18, 2016 by california boy

[Kenngo1969]

5 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

So, romantic kissing is the same as sexual intercourse (which is the only term used in the Law of Chastity).

If so, I have only one thing to say about that:

Bummer, Dude!  

 

P.S.: And yeah, I guess that means I'm being unfair by implying that certain behavior that is not necessarily prohibited to opposite-sex couples is prohibited to their same-sex counterparts, but I'm in absolutely no danger of being noticed, in the slightest degree, romantically by the opposite sex, much less passionately kissing one of its number, anytime soon ...  

Edited July 18, 2016 by Kenngo1969

[Kenngo1969]

6 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I'm glad I don't go by the plan of happiness way in the church to be happy. God's plan works well enough.

False dichotomy, My Dear!  False dichotomy!

[california boy]

51 minutes ago, rongo said:

I think this blog from a girl I sent on a mission in my former ward, and her gay husband, has a bearing on whether there is a place in the Plan of Happiness for gays. They would both resoundingly say, "Yes!"

http://beingoutisin.blogspot.com/2015/12/pilot.html

I was at their sealing, and they are expecting their first child in two months. I think that some would say this doesn't count, because he isn't living in a gay relationship and trying to navigate being active LDS, but if you read his explanations, he disagrees strongly. He identifies as gay, and always has been. 

Great blog.  I agreed with everything he said.  Sounds like he has a wonderful family.  Unfortunately we can to control how others treat us.  We can only control how we react to that treatment.  I identified with a lot of what he wrote.  I hope he continues to find happiness.  As he says several times, it was the right thing for him.  It might not be the right thing for others.  We all have to find our own paths.

[Storm Rider]

44 minutes ago, california boy said:

Great blog.  I agreed with everything he said.  Sounds like he has a wonderful family.  Unfortunately we can to control how others treat us.  We can only control how we react to that treatment.  I identified with a lot of what he wrote.  I hope he continues to find happiness.  As he says several times, it was the right thing for him.  It might not be the right thing for others.  We all have to find our own paths.

I think we do initially have to find our own path, but at some point there is a union of belief, a singleness of heart, obedience, and truth.  Were it not so then Christ would have told us the way is wide open to be approached as we choose.  The exact opposite is what he said, straight is the gate and narrow is the way and few there be that find it.  Why do you think Christ would warn his brothers and sisters that few would find it?  Is it because it is difficult or because it is too demanding, or something else?  

If we know it is challenging prior to entering into his kingdom why do God's children, each of us, fight against it so much?

[jkwilliams]

46 minutes ago, california boy said:

Great blog.  I agreed with everything he said.  Sounds like he has a wonderful family.  Unfortunately we can to control how others treat us.  We can only control how we react to that treatment.  I identified with a lot of what he wrote.  I hope he continues to find happiness.  As he says several times, it was the right thing for him.  It might not be the right thing for others.  We all have to find our own paths.

Indeed. I find that there are very few "right" answers that apply to everyone. We just have to find right answer for us. 

One thing I notice is that a lot of people seem to reduce being gay to simple sexual attraction like being attracted to hair color or body features, but very few gay men and women I know would agree with this. Being gay involves how you approach relationships and people and where you feel comfortable in society every bit as much as it involves what you find sexually arousing. If it were just about suppressing sexual desire, most people are probably capable of doing so, but what gay members are asked to do is more like suppressing your identity, and that is a much different task altogether.

If I thought the church actually represented God's will on earth, I don't know what I would tell gay members other than I would not advise a gay member to marry someone of the opposite sex, as that's not fair to the spouse. Sure, there are some people like the woman in the blog mentioned who are OK being with someone who isn't attracted to them sexually, but generally speaking, that's a heck of a lot to ask of a spouse. If someone I knew in the church told me they were gay, I would probably point out that they have to choose between living authentically and living as a Mormon. I'd choose an authentic life any day, but I wouldn't presume to tell anyone else what to do.

[Storm Rider]

25 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

...One thing I notice is that a lot of people seem to reduce being gay to simple sexual attraction like being attracted to hair color or body features, but very few gay men and women I know would agree with this. Being gay involves how you approach relationships and people and where you feel comfortable in society every bit as much as it involves what you find sexually arousing. If it were just about suppressing sexual desire, most people are probably capable of doing so, but what gay members are asked to do is more like suppressing your identity, and that is a much different task altogether.

Drug addicts have the same type of comfort with other addicts and feel just as uncomfortable with those who are not interested in abusing drugs.  

Comfort is a strange qualifier on a path that seeks after righteousness. I find that we only huger after righteousness when we develop a taste for it.  

[jkwilliams]

13 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

Drug addicts have the same type of comfort with other addicts and feel just as uncomfortable with those who are not interested in abusing drugs.  

Comfort is a strange qualifier on a path that seeks after righteousness. I find that we only huger after righteousness when we develop a taste for it.  

Why is it that being gay is so often spoken of as a defect or failing, like drug addiction? Either way, one can overcome drug addiction, and the level of comfort will change, though, as I said, this "comfort" is only a small part of the equation. If you talk to gay men and women, ranging from sexually active to active, temple-worthy church members, they will tell you that it goes far beyond simple arousal. No matter how much one suppresses sexual desire, the other factors that are involved in orientation are not going away. IMO, it's not the sexual suppression that does the most damage, but the suppression of who you are and how you naturally approach the world. Most of us would be capable, if we had to, of refraining from sexual activity altogether. It wouldn't be a healthy thing, IMO, but it's possible. But we would have a hard time denying ourselves all real companionship and nonsexual intimacy. That's the kind of thing that drives people to kill themselves, IMO.

[Gray]

10 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Why is it that being gay is so often spoken of as a defect or failing, like drug addiction? Either way, one can overcome drug addiction, and the level of comfort will change, though, as I said, this "comfort" is only a small part of the equation. If you talk to gay men and women, ranging from sexually active to active, temple-worthy church members, they will tell you that it goes far beyond simple arousal. No matter how much one suppresses sexual desire, the other factors that are involved in orientation are not going away. IMO, it's not the sexual suppression that does the most damage, but the suppression of who you are and how you naturally approach the world. Most of us would be capable, if we had to, of refraining from sexual activity altogether. It wouldn't be a healthy thing, IMO, but it's possible. But we would have a hard time denying ourselves all real companionship and nonsexual intimacy. That's the kind of thing that drives people to kill themselves, IMO.

It's like asking people to never set foot in the sunlight again. Intimacy (including non-sexual intimacy) is a basic human need. 

Edited July 18, 2016 by Gray

[Storm Rider]

34 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Why is it that being gay is so often spoken of as a defect or failing, like drug addiction? Either way, one can overcome drug addiction, and the level of comfort will change, though, as I said, this "comfort" is only a small part of the equation. If you talk to gay men and women, ranging from sexually active to active, temple-worthy church members, they will tell you that it goes far beyond simple arousal. No matter how much one suppresses sexual desire, the other factors that are involved in orientation are not going away. IMO, it's not the sexual suppression that does the most damage, but the suppression of who you are and how you naturally approach the world. Most of us would be capable, if we had to, of refraining from sexual activity altogether. It wouldn't be a healthy thing, IMO, but it's possible. But we would have a hard time denying ourselves all real companionship and nonsexual intimacy. That's the kind of thing that drives people to kill themselves, IMO.

At times I think we are saying the same thing and at other times I don't think we are.  I suspect we agree on many points, but not all points.  

I reject the concept that an individual with SSA is uniquely different i.e. that having SSA is a pervasive way of being that allows an individual to be attracted to their own gender.  I tend to think that having SSA is just that - being attracted to member of your own gender; nothing more and nothing less.  

The reason SSA is spoken of as sinful, which is more accurate than terming it a defect because that puts a spin on it that is incorrect, is because SSA is directly counter to the plan that God has for his children.  An individual chooses to follow Christ and accepts his teachings or not.  We each learn to suppress temptation in its myriad forms in exchange for focusing on becoming a more evolved, righteous being.  

Btw, I have talked and talk with many individuals with SSA or who use the label gay.  We have made conflicting conclusions about those interactions.  

[jkwilliams]

7 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

At times I think we are saying the same thing and at other times I don't think we are.  I suspect we agree on many points, but not all points.  

I reject the concept that an individual with SSA is uniquely different i.e. that having SSA is a pervasive way of being that allows an individual to be attracted to their own gender.  I tend to think that having SSA is just that - being attracted to member of your own gender; nothing more and nothing less.  

The reason SSA is spoken of as sinful, which is more accurate than terming it a defect because that puts a spin on it that is incorrect, is because SSA is directly counter to the plan that God has for his children.  An individual chooses to follow Christ and accepts his teachings or not.  We each learn to suppress temptation in its myriad forms in exchange for focusing on becoming a more evolved, righteous being.  

Btw, I have talked and talk with many individuals with SSA or who use the label gay.  We have made conflicting conclusions about those interactions.  

Thanks for clarifying that. I think we will just disagree on what it means to be gay, as I think it's overly reductive to define it simply by sexual attraction. 

I suppose I would have a similar attitude to yours if I believed the church represented God's plan for his children. 

[california boy]

1 hour ago, jkwilliams said:

Why is it that being gay is so often spoken of as a defect or failing, like drug addiction? Either way, one can overcome drug addiction, and the level of comfort will change, though, as I said, this "comfort" is only a small part of the equation. If you talk to gay men and women, ranging from sexually active to active, temple-worthy church members, they will tell you that it goes far beyond simple arousal. No matter how much one suppresses sexual desire, the other factors that are involved in orientation are not going away. IMO, it's not the sexual suppression that does the most damage, but the suppression of who you are and how you naturally approach the world. Most of us would be capable, if we had to, of refraining from sexual activity altogether. It wouldn't be a healthy thing, IMO, but it's possible. But we would have a hard time denying ourselves all real companionship and nonsexual intimacy. That's the kind of thing that drives people to kill themselves, IMO.

 

1 hour ago, Gray said:

It's like asking people to never set foot in the sunlight again. Intimacy (including non-sexual intimacy) is a basic human need. 

Sometimes I am amazed at how well you two straight guys "get it".  I can tell that you have not only talked to gay guys before, but you have also listened.  I do think that others try to understand, but i always get the feeling that the they are talking to gay guys, they are more concerned with how to fit what they are saying with the paradigm  the church has set out, that they don't really hear all of what the other person is saying.  They are always ready for a "but how about this" kind of answer.  Like they are trying to correct how the person actually feels in order to make it fit into their own beliefs.  Perhaps we all do that.  We feel like the paradigm we believe in is he correct one, and if it differs from what we think is right, then it is them that must be wrong.  I know I have to be careful of not doing that myself.  I don't always succeed.  Thanks guys, for listening.