Man believes homosexuality is a “sexual addiction and dependency”

[Guest]

23 hours ago, california boy said:

Man grows up in a Mormon household where he is taught that being gay is evil, a sin and his soul is doomed to hell if he engages in it.  Out of fear he turns heterosexual, marries a woman, has children, but through understanding and education, he overcomes his heterosexuality and is finally able to be gay.

What was the real orientation in this case and the case above.  Does anyone else have any antidotal stores they want to tell that proves their beliefs?

Point of order, in our Faith and most others, all sin (especially sexual sins) meaning anything out of wedlock, and even moreso, having multiple partners will lead to "doom" (as you stated) and the loss of eternal life. Heterosexuality sin as I described carries the same punishment, concerning eternal punishment, no more harsh that Homosexuality. In fact for someone married in the Temple and who commits or exhibits sexual infidelity can and will be ex-ed more quickly than someone who is homosexual. There is no double standard when it come to this. 

[BlueDreams]

21 hours ago, RevTestament said:

Gosh, at least someone seems to understand the point of this thread  Thanks for chipping in.

I feel kinda like I'm sticking my head out on the chopping block on this issue, but when I read the man's story, I was impressed with questions like how does/should the church help someone who wants to change? My feeling is there are homosexuals out there who may want to change. They may wish to lead a traditional life. Is that possible? What can we as church members best do to help them do that? I think another valid question is if there is evidence that at least not all homosexuality is biological, what can parents do guide there children into a traditional life? I realize that last question  is the charged one, but this particular case seems to raise it. As I said in my OP I have long believed our society suffers from a lack of love. Many children do not feel loved. They feel separated or isolated from the rest of society. For many children school is more of a contest than a family. Both parents work, and the kids are more isolated than they used to be it seems to me. It seems to me that this manifests itself in various "abnormal" or obsessive ways. But it is so prevalent that it is the new normal. Kids are looking to have their needs met however they can - that can lead to "abnormal" compulsions. 

I don't view homosexuality as a sex addiction, but sex addiction is one of the ailments I believe this "new normal" has generated. There certainly does seem to be a large preoccupation with sex in our society. But there are many others. What I'm saying is that realizing this, and addressing it would definitely be part of a change back to the traditional family which I view as the last safe haven for kids, but I guess that in itself is up for debate in the "new normal."

I think Smith's reaction in his post is exactly why I posted this thread. Is there hope for the homosexual who wants to change or will their attempt to change and marry a heterosexual partner be viewed or greeted with alarm by both homosexuals and hetero members of the church? The man in my OP seems to indicate it can be done through Yeshua. It is a difficult area, and sometimes it is messy. If someone just never meets "that person" that gets any hormones going, I certainly am not telling them to get married anyway. As Robert points out that can lead to a lot of pain.

Yeah, you really are putting your head out on the chopping block and I feel for you. My first reaction to the title was.....oh crap. Followed by Ugh!. Which is probably the reaction a number are having to this thread. But I do think you're earnestly wanting to think these things through, so I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt.

First off sexuality is complicated. Very complicated. I often tell my clients (who are mostly not gay or have ever experienced SSA, that I'm aware of) that their sexual relationship is like a finger print. It's not something to be compared to another. What works for one may not work for another. You are your own story and your sexual expression is just one method to share your story in a healthy relationally congruent manner. I hope that gives a better picture for my general critique: no story should be held up as a poster child example for another's. Sure, we can learn from each other, but his story, CB's story, my story, or anyone else can't be hailed as some indicator of how one "should" manage their life. 

This man, from the sound of it, had a compulsive sexual activity that happened to be tied up to acting out with men of the same-sex. He at some point made sense of it by common social narratives that exist today. Ie gay or straight and that not being "normal" sexually must mean one is "gay." These are labels that can help navigate or express one's experience. But sometimes they're not enough to capture someone's actual experience. I think this man is a perfect example as how this may happen. From what I've read, his sexual compulsions wasn't about finding a loving healthy relationships. It was almost solely on fixation of sexual interludes with very little attached beyond that (I could be wrong). For most who would ID as gay, this story wouldn't fit. They're not strictly looking for a sexual relationship. They're looking for relationship(s) that may include sex at some point.

I do not think the "new normal" generated sex addiction. I have qualms with the term sex addiction in the first place. I use it for lack of a better term at times. But most of the cases that I've seen that fall under the term sex addiction or porn addiction are more similar to me as anorexia, bulimia, or BED (and softer cases similar to emotional eating). They have an unhealthy relationship with a normal and essential part of being human. The "new normal" can mean that these problems can go untreated for a long time by assertions that that's how I am. Of course the "old" normal can also fuel these by driving them underground and maintaining cycles of shame and secrecy. 

 

On your last paragraph. I think there is definitely hope for LDS folks who are LGB. But the aim of the hope may need to change. Instead of hoping for a specific end result that may or may not happen or even be what God desires for that person in this life, it's a brighter hope to trust that God can make our experiences beautiful. That we, in whatever orientation we find ourselves may be expressions of His light. That is a hope that is universal. It's not cemented in one's marital status, sexual orientation, or even sins and struggles we've encountered in the past.

I've found myself pondering 2 scriptures a lot lately. One is part of a footnote in Eccl. 3. After talking about how there is a time an season for everything in God's creations the chapter continues to say: 

 9 What profit hath he that worketh in that wherein helaboureth? 

 10 I have seen the travail, which God hath given to the sons of men to be exercised in it.

 11 He hath made every thing beautiful in his time: also he hath set the world in their heart, so that no man can find out the work that God maketh from the beginning to the end. this in the HEB footnote reads very differently and says: "he hath set the eternal in their heart without which man cannot find out the work that God hath done"

 

The other verse is 93: 28-30

 29 Man was also in the beginning with God. Intelligence, or the light of truth, was not created or made, neither indeed can be.

 30 All truth is independent in that sphere in which God has placed it, to act for itself, as all intelligence also; otherwise there is no existence.

 31 Behold, here is the agency of man, and here is the condemnation of man; because that which was from the beginning is plainly manifest unto them, and they receive not the light.

 

These two remind me that though we are all meant to be expression of the Light and truth of God, each work and each individual plan is not meant to be exactly the same. That the only way to know such is to seek out God, work with the spirit, and find that "eternal" in our hearts. I can learn from other's experiences. I just finished the personal videos on mormon channel about the people who are LGBT or experienced SSA. All of them had differing stories. All of their stories were beautiful in their own right. Their stories gave me hope in my own journey and experience that is very different from their own. And I accept that their answers vary but that the expression of God in those stories are no less precious or good in their moment. I think it's healthier for someone to find the hope in where God takes them then trying to push a specific expectation of what their life "should" look like. I know that you acknowledged that you're not insisting that a person be married or push a marriage to someone they're not sexually attracted to. But I think the inadvertent message of promoting just one experience is that some would try it, in the real pressure to be "normal" and "fit in" and have some of the desires that we all have...belonging, family, companionship, etc. 

And all things are possible with God. But not all things that we desire will happen with God. And not all things will happen in the way that we think they "should." To any person of faith struggling with their journey in life (whatever it is), I would want them to know that their answers don't have to match another's to be true. That what matters is that they listen to God and trust the answer He gives in their heart. That it may be painful at times, but that it will ultimately bring us the peace one needs. And as one does so, remember to have compassion and look for those who may need a boost from you as they do the same.

 

With luv,

BD

[RevTestament]

5 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

Yeah, you really are putting your head out on the chopping block and I feel for you. My first reaction to the title was.....oh crap. Followed by Ugh!. Which is probably the reaction a number are having to this thread. But I do think you're earnestly wanting to think these things through, so I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt.

First off sexuality is complicated. Very complicated. I often tell my clients (who are mostly not gay or have ever experienced SSA, that I'm aware of) that their sexual relationship is like a finger print. It's not something to be compared to another. What works for one may not work for another. You are your own story and your sexual expression is just one method to share your story in a healthy relationally congruent manner. I hope that gives a better picture for my general critique: no story should be held up as a poster child example for another's. Sure, we can learn from each other, but his story, CB's story, my story, or anyone else can't be hailed as some indicator of how one "should" manage their life. 

This man, from the sound of it, had a compulsive sexual activity that happened to be tied up to acting out with men of the same-sex. He at some point made sense of it by common social narratives that exist today. Ie gay or straight and that not being "normal" sexually must mean one is "gay." These are labels that can help navigate or express one's experience. But sometimes they're not enough to capture someone's actual experience. I think this man is a perfect example as how this may happen. From what I've read, his sexual compulsions wasn't about finding a loving healthy relationships. It was almost solely on fixation of sexual interludes with very little attached beyond that (I could be wrong). For most who would ID as gay, this story wouldn't fit. They're not strictly looking for a sexual relationship. They're looking for relationship(s) that may include sex at some point.

I do not think the "new normal" generated sex addiction. I have qualms with the term sex addiction in the first place. I use it for lack of a better term at times. But most of the cases that I've seen that fall under the term sex addiction or porn addiction are more similar to me as anorexia, bulimia, or BED (and softer cases similar to emotional eating). They have an unhealthy relationship with a normal and essential part of being human. The "new normal" can mean that these problems can go untreated for a long time by assertions that that's how I am. Of course the "old" normal can also fuel these by driving them underground and maintaining cycles of shame and secrecy. 

 

On your last paragraph. I think there is definitely hope for LDS folks who are LGB. But the aim of the hope may need to change. Instead of hoping for a specific end result that may or may not happen or even be what God desires for that person in this life, it's a brighter hope to trust that God can make our experiences beautiful. That we, in whatever orientation we find ourselves may be expressions of His light. That is a hope that is universal. It's not cemented in one's marital status, sexual orientation, or even sins and struggles we've encountered in the past.

I've found myself pondering 2 scriptures a lot lately. One is part of a footnote in Eccl. 3. After talking about how there is a time an season for everything in God's creations the chapter continues to say: 

 9 What profit hath he that worketh in that wherein helaboureth? 

 10 I have seen the travail, which God hath given to the sons of men to be exercised in it.

 11 He hath made every thing beautiful in his time: also he hath set the world in their heart, so that no man can find out the work that God maketh from the beginning to the end. this in the HEB footnote reads very differently and says: "he hath set the eternal in their heart without which man cannot find out the work that God hath done"

 

The other verse is 93: 28-30

 29 Man was also in the beginning with God. Intelligence, or the light of truth, was not created or made, neither indeed can be.

 30 All truth is independent in that sphere in which God has placed it, to act for itself, as all intelligence also; otherwise there is no existence.

 31 Behold, here is the agency of man, and here is the condemnation of man; because that which was from the beginning is plainly manifest unto them, and they receive not the light.

 

These two remind me that though we are all meant to be expression of the Light and truth of God, each work and each individual plan is not meant to be exactly the same. That the only way to know such is to seek out God, work with the spirit, and find that "eternal" in our hearts. I can learn from other's experiences. I just finished the personal videos on mormon channel about the people who are LGBT or experienced SSA. All of them had differing stories. All of their stories were beautiful in their own right. Their stories gave me hope in my own journey and experience that is very different from their own. And I accept that their answers vary but that the expression of God in those stories are no less precious or good in their moment. I think it's healthier for someone to find the hope in where God takes them then trying to push a specific expectation of what their life "should" look like. I know that you acknowledged that you're not insisting that a person be married or push a marriage to someone they're not sexually attracted to. But I think the inadvertent message of promoting just one experience is that some would try it, in the real pressure to be "normal" and "fit in" and have some of the desires that we all have...belonging, family, companionship, etc. 

And all things are possible with God. But not all things that we desire will happen with God. And not all things will happen in the way that we think they "should." To any person of faith struggling with their journey in life (whatever it is), I would want them to know that their answers don't have to match another's to be true. That what matters is that they listen to God and trust the answer He gives in their heart. That it may be painful at times, but that it will ultimately bring us the peace one needs. And as one does so, remember to have compassion and look for those who may need a boost from you as they do the same.

 

With luv,

BD

Yeah, the title is kinda ugh, isn't it? I normally don't even open threads on the subject of homosexuality.

Thank you for your thoughts Bluedreams - very thoughtful and thought provoking. I think LDS sometimes burden themselves with a lot of "shoulds" rather than just trusting in God to help them, which is certainly applicable on this subject.

"But I think the inadvertent message of promoting just one experience is that some would try it, in the real pressure to be "normal" and "fit in" and have some of the desires that we all have...belonging, family, companionship, etc. "

Unless one tries the waters, one will never know if they are comfortable. I see absolutely nothing wrong for someone with SSA to date the opposite sex. If they find the company of someone enjoyable, why not seek more of their company? The tendency to think "I was born this way" prevents someone from trying, but for many people I think this is really their only choice. Someone with an attraction to children for instance definitely needs to learn healthier adult relationships. The list goes on.

[BCSpace]

Quote

Man believes homosexuality is a “sexual addiction and dependency”

It is the most plausible explanation.

[ALarson]

10 hours ago, BCSpace said:

It is the most plausible explanation.

No it isn't.  Is heterosexuality a "sexual addiction and dependency"?

[Gray]

23 hours ago, Bill "Papa" Lee said:

 In fact for someone married in the Temple and who commits or exhibits sexual infidelity can and will be ex-ed more quickly than someone who is homosexual. There is no double standard when it come to this. 

I don't think so. Adulterers are not branded "apostates." So fidelity to one's spouse must be less important, according to current thinking, than avoiding gay marriage.

[HappyJackWagon]

The arguments based on assumptions and "evidence" in this thread make me sad.

[Gray]

1 hour ago, ALarson said:

No it isn't.  Is heterosexuality a "sexual addiction and dependency"?

I've been struggling with OSA for years with no relief.

[Kevin Christensen]

On 10/29/2016 at 4:20 PM, Robert F. Smith said:

An extraordinary piece, Kevin -- with awe-full clarity and meaning.  I simply had no idea.  Thank you.

 

Thanks for the kind comment Robert.  I have been rather surprised by the general Bloggernacle silence that has greeted it. Robert Heinlein commented that publishing can like "Dropping feathers down a well."  In general, I don't find such silences with respect to my essays surprising, but given the topic and the specific subjects, I expected something other than nothing whatsoever.  My theory is that even raising the questions I do turns out to threaten a politically dominant narrative whose proponents and flotsam overall prefer not to engage in self-reflection of the sort raised by the observations I made.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

[Guest]

4 hours ago, Gray said:

I don't think so. Adulterers are not branded "apostates." So fidelity to one's spouse must be less important, according to current thinking, than avoiding gay marriage.

If that adulter comes out in open opposition to the Church, or anyone for that matter, they are "branded" (crude definition) as an apostate. 

[Calm]

4 hours ago, Gray said:

 Adulterers are not branded "apostates." So fidelity to one's spouse must be less important, according to current thinking, than avoiding gay marriage.

They would be, I suspect, if they started promoting sexual relationships outside of marriage as moral behaviour.  But this whole premise of "importance" is not being properly applied.  Adultery usually damages a personal relationship in a family and therefore should be addressed on that level, apostasy changes the relationship of the individual with the whole faith community and thus should be handled on that more macro level.  

The damage to the family of the adulterer may be vastly more deep and lasting than any damage to the faith community for the apostasy that occurs with individuals choosing to participate in gay marriage.  Otoh, a choice to view and participate in behaviour that proclaims homosexual sexual behavior as completely moral and appropriate and right in God's eyes (if one believes in God) may not have as much negative impact on the faith community and may only involve the sorrow that comes when a fellow Saint decides to leave, but there may be a long lasting effect on the individual as they create a major obstacle to repentance in that aspect of their own life...something an adulterer might not do (s/he may rationalize the adulterous behaviour as moral, but it is rarely assumed such as it is from what I have seen by those who choose gay marriage).

There are two issues with gay marriage, one is the sexual morality issue which falls in the same category as adultery, etc.; the spiritual damage is to the individuals involved and their family (this of course assumes the Church's teaching on homosexual sexual behaviour as sin is correct). The other issue is the public rejection though its existence of the Church's teaching on marriage being between a man and a woman. This amounts to teaching false doctrine (through example) and falls in the category of other public conflicts/rejections of the Church's teachings, such as proclaiming there is no God, no need for the Restoration, no need to pay tithing, one should ordain women, etc.  This type of behaviour changes the individual's relationship with the whole faith community, even those he has never met and never will.

A parallel example was the men who claimed to ordain black men prior to the removal of the Ban.  They claimed their ordination was legitimate in God's eyes.  It was not considered such by the Church and they were declared apostate when they wouldn't withdraw their claim.  Same reason why current plural marriages are deemed apostate while adultery is not if the adulterer does not attempt to claim it is legitimate under God's laws.

Apostasy is not better or worse than sexual/immorality sins or more or less important.  Excommunication or discipline is about covenant keeping and being part of the faith community.  Apostasy is a rejection of the community's laws, so minor or major it may be appropriate to remove the blessing that covenantly binds the person to the community and the community to the person, removing obligations the person has chosen not to keep and made impossible for the community to fulfill.  Adultery is breaking of the marriage covenant, but there may still be an acceptance of the laws of God even if they have knowingly chosen to break them (if they continue to do so, it is a rejection in deed if not in word and excommunication is appropriate).

Personally, I can admire a person who has studied well, come to conclusions based on accurate facts and chosen to leave the faith because they now believe the Church has false teachings or lacks the authority or they did not receive spiritual confirmation without misrepresenting those teachings.  This person would be an apostate and I would have no problem with inviting them into my home, having them teach my kids, or calling them a moral person.  Otoh, I would have all those problems with someone who was an unrepentant adulterer or an adulterer who wasn't clear on repentance even if they proclaimed they were (such as a man in a former ward who 'went through the repentance process' after excommunication and had his blessings restored, but was still leaving love notes for his former partner...which she hated, btw).

"Apostate" has become seen as a very negative label because the apostasy is so often coupled with a public attempt to destroy the Church, they have become anti-Mormon in their apostasy.  And then there is the history where some early apostates (not most of course) contributed to the turmoil that resulted in extreme suffering and even death of many Saints, so the word has been tainted in the Church from the beginning in that sense. Most engaging in gay marriage are not this type of apostate though, don't even come close, but it appears to me that some in this thread and elsewhere can't get past what is only a possible connection with anti-Mormonism and not a given.

Edited October 31, 2016 by Calm

[Gray]

18 minutes ago, Bill "Papa" Lee said:

If that adulter comes out in open opposition to the Church, or anyone for that matter, they are "branded" (crude definition) as an apostate. 

Apparently adultery in and of itself is not sufficiently "in open opposition" to the church, but gay marriage is?

[Calm]

An adulterer may still view his/her behaviour as a sin in accordance with church teachings.  It is possible someone in a gay marriage views that participation as a sin, but highly unlikely since the whole premise is to put that relationship on the same moral and legal foundation that a OS marriage possesses.

While beliefs that contradict church teachings can be privately held without being labeled apostate, continuing public display of contradictory beliefs is defined as apostasy.

Edited October 31, 2016 by Calm

[Maestrophil]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

Apparently adultery in and of itself is not sufficiently "in open opposition" to the church, but gay marriage is?

An adulterer that announces publicly their intent to remain always an unrepentant adulterer will not find a long membership in the church possible and will be 'branded' apostate

[Gray]

7 minutes ago, Maestrophil said:

An adulterer that announces publicly their intent to remain always an unrepentant adulterer will not find a long membership in the church possible and will be 'branded' apostate

Not according to the handbook. 

[Gray]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

They would be, I suspect, if they started promoting sexual relationships outside of marriage as moral behaviour.  But this whole premise of "importance" is not being properly applied.  Adultery usually damages a personal relationship in a family and therefore should be addressed on that level, apostasy changes the relationship of the individual with the whole faith community and thus should be handled on that more macro level.  

The damage to the family of the adulterer may be vastly more deep and lasting than any damage to the faith community for the apostasy that occurs with individuals choosing to participate in gay marriage.  Otoh, a choice to view and participate in behaviour that proclaims homosexual sexual behavior as completely moral and appropriate and right in God's eyes (if one believes in God) may not have as much negative impact on the faith community and may only involve the sorrow that comes when a fellow Saint decides to leave, but there may be a long lasting effect on the individual as they create a major obstacle to repentance in that aspect of their own life...something an adulterer might not do (s/he may rationalize the adulterous behaviour as moral, but it is rarely assumed such as it is from what I have seen by those who choose gay marriage).

There are two issues with gay marriage, one is the sexual morality issue which falls in the same category as adultery, etc.; the spiritual damage is to the individuals involved and their family (this of course assumes the Church's teaching on homosexual sexual behaviour as sin is correct). The other issue is the public rejection though its existence of the Church's teaching on marriage being between a man and a woman. This amounts to teaching false doctrine (through example) and falls in the category of other public conflicts/rejections of the Church's teachings, such as proclaiming there is no God, no need for the Restoration, no need to pay tithing, one should ordain women, etc.  This type of behaviour changes the individual's relationship with the whole faith community, even those he has never met and never will.

A parallel example was the men who claimed to ordain black men prior to the removal of the Ban.  They claimed their ordination was legitimate in God's eyes.  It was not considered such by the Church and they were declared apostate when they wouldn't withdraw their claim.  Same reason why current plural marriages are deemed apostate while adultery is not if the adulterer does not attempt to claim it is legitimate under God's laws.

Apostasy is not better or worse than sexual/immorality sins or more or less important.  Excommunication or discipline is about covenant keeping and being part of the faith community.  Apostasy is a rejection of the community's laws, so minor or major it may be appropriate to remove the blessing that covenantly binds the person to the community and the community to the person, removing obligations the person has chosen not to keep and made impossible for the community to fulfill.  Adultery is breaking of the marriage covenant, but there may still be an acceptance of the laws of God even if they have knowingly chosen to break them (if they continue to do so, it is a rejection in deed if not in word and excommunication is appropriate).

Personally, I can admire a person who has studied well, come to conclusions based on accurate facts and chosen to leave the faith because they now believe the Church has false teachings or lacks the authority or they did not receive spiritual confirmation without misrepresenting those teachings.  This person would be an apostate and I would have no problem with inviting them into my home, having them teach my kids, or calling them a moral person.  Otoh, I would have all those problems with someone who was an unrepentant adulterer or an adulterer who wasn't clear on repentance even if they proclaimed they were (such as a man in a former ward who 'went through the repentance process' after excommunication and had his blessings restored, but was still leaving love notes for his former partner...which she hated, btw).

"Apostate" has become seen as a very negative label because the apostasy is so often coupled with a public attempt to destroy the Church, they have become anti-Mormon in their apostasy.  And then there is the history where some early apostates (not most of course) contributed to the turmoil that resulted in extreme suffering and even death of many Saints, so the word has been tainted in the Church from the beginning in that sense. Most engaging in gay marriage are not this type of apostate though, don't even come close, but it appears to me that some in this thread and elsewhere can't get past what is only a possible connection with anti-Mormonism and not a given.

Thanks for the thoughtful comments.

I still see it as very problematic to brand behavior (and in this case, something ordinary people do like getting married) as apostasy. When you open up apostasy to include behaviors, apostasy becomes a meaningless term. The renunciation of belief is apostasy. If we can signal that just by sinning, why not redefine all sin as apostasy and be done with it? And as I've observed before, we're allowed to actually advocate for gay marriage, and the official word is that doing so is NOT apostasy! Very confusing. 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

Apparently adultery in and of itself is not sufficiently "in open opposition" to the church, but gay marriage is?

When taken too far, it is...and if one advocates for even a moment that Adultery should be adopted by the Church, or that it is not in violation of Church doctrine, then that person is at that very moment in open opposition to the teaching and doctrine of the Church and an apostate. A person who takes part in Gay marriages and does nothing more is not and cannot be called an apostate. I know where you want to take this idea, but it is a dead in road filled with nothing but apples and oranges. 

[Gray]

13 minutes ago, Bill "Papa" Lee said:

When taken too far, it is...and if one advocates for even a moment that Adultery should be adopted by the Church, or that it is not in violation of Church doctrine, then that person is at that very moment in open opposition to the teaching and doctrine of the Church and an apostate. A person who takes part in Gay marriages and does nothing more is not and cannot be called an apostate. I know where you want to take this idea, but it is a dead in road filled with nothing but apples and oranges. 

But here's where it gets tricky, Bill. I can advocate for gay marriage all I like, and I am not in apostasy from the church. But if I were to get "gay married", suddenly I would be an apostate. Does that make sense to you?

 

Quote

 

a·pos·ta·sy

noun

the abandonment or renunciation of a religious or political belief.

 

 

Edited October 31, 2016 by Gray

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

Thanks for the thoughtful comments.

I still see it as very problematic to brand behavior (and in this case, something ordinary people do like getting married) as apostasy. When you open up apostasy to include behaviors, apostasy becomes a meaningless term. The renunciation of belief is apostasy. If we can signal that just by sinning, why not redefine all sin as apostasy and be done with it? And as I've observed before, we're allowed to actually advocate for gay marriage, and the official word is that doing so is NOT apostasy! Very confusing. 

Do you have the same problem with those who practice plural marriage? (Serious question)  Behaviours are expression of beliefs, sometimes even better than verbal expression (which technically is a behaviour, but hopefully you understand what I mean).  Behaviours that include a rejection of a teaching (in this case, currently marriage in God's law is between a man and a woman legally married) seem to me to be appropriately called apostasy.

Adcocating for someone's legal right to behave in a way that rejects certain church teachings and to be supported by the government while doing so is not the same thing as rejecting them yourself.  I think there could be ways to advocate that veers into apostasy (for example, the Church is wrong to teach homosexual sexual behaviour is a sin), but it is not a given.

Edited October 31, 2016 by Calm

[Guest]

42 minutes ago, Gray said:

But here's where it gets tricky, Bill. I can advocate for gay marriage all I like, and I am not in apostasy from the church. But if I were to get "gay married", suddenly I would be an apostate. Does that make sense to you?

 

 

That is just not true...I have been on Church Courts that deal with simular issues, and during none has "Apostacy" been a change, mentioned or written. Someone who marries or co-habitats in a Gay relationship is considered an apostate, as "Apostacy" must eventually bring about Church action. This Saturady my daughter will marry for the second time someone of the same sex (hope this one takes for good) and I will be giving her away, and my entire family and some of the LDS Friends will be there...she has never been disciplined, nor will any of us in attendance. I am opposed to Gay marriage, but I love my daughter more...I am not and no one who knows me would ever consider me as an apostate.

Anyway...done. 

[Maestrophil]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

Not according to the handbook. 

CFR

[Robert F. Smith]

4 hours ago, Kevin Christensen said:

Thanks for the kind comment Robert.  I have been rather surprised by the general Bloggernacle silence that has greeted it. Robert Heinlein commented that publishing can like "Dropping feathers down a well."  In general, I don't find such silences with respect to my essays surprising, but given the topic and the specific subjects, I expected something other than nothing whatsoever.  My theory is that even raising the questions I do turns out to threaten a politically dominant narrative whose proponents and flotsam overall prefer not to engage in self-reflection of the sort raised by the observations I made.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

Yep.  Maybe it cuts to close to the quick.

[BCSpace]

14 hours ago, ALarson said:

No it isn't.  Is heterosexuality a "sexual addiction and dependency"?

For homosexuality, that's where all the research led to until about 2002 when it became unpopular to do real scientific research on the subject.  An now that the politically correct research has failed, we're back to the same conclusions as before; homosexuality is a mentally and physically risky lifestyle choice.

Heterosexuality?  Homosexuality doesn't even rise to the same category.  Whether you believe in God or Nature, the parts aren't designed to work that way so genetic aberration at best.  The jig is up on the homosexual lie and supporters of it need political clout to enforce their views and intimidate the populace like any other Left wing policy.

Edited November 1, 2016 by BCSpace

[canard78]

On 29/10/2016 at 5:10 PM, mfbukowski said:

I think it can and does happen this way.  I know at least one other person with a similar history.

There's a fairly simple explanation for cases like this. A person who can happily be first in a gay relationship and then later be happily in a straight one can be described in one word: bisexual. 

All the guff and gubbins about their faith changing their sexuality is just post rationalisation. It's a shame that someone like this has applied religious meaning to a simple reality of sexual persuasion and it places an unfair pressure on other gay/lesbian people of faith. 

[carbon dioxide]

13 hours ago, Gray said:

I don't think so. Adulterers are not branded "apostates." So fidelity to one's spouse must be less important, according to current thinking, than avoiding gay marriage.

Apostates or not what is the difference in the end?  Both are eligible for telestial glory without repentance.  Whether gay marriage is apostasy and adultery or being a porn star is not really does not matter.  Stop worrying about the labels or titles we give to these actions.  It really does not make a difference. The people who inherit telestial glory whether it was because they decided to commit adultery, premarital sex, or being in gay relationships married or not will tell you that it really does not matter in their circumstance.  They are where they are.  Christ does not save us in our sins but from our sins.  We all must repent and turn away. 

Edited November 1, 2016 by carbon dioxide