Man believes homosexuality is a “sexual addiction and dependency”

[Calm]

1 hour ago, canard78 said:

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. 

Couldn't one say the same thing viewing from the outside men and women apparently happy in heterosexual relationships only to later identify as gay?  Is it appropriate to inform them that they must be bisexual no matter how they self identify?  And any later claim that they weren't happy after all is only post rationalization?

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, canard78 said:

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. 

Ah, I see you are now omniscient and know that ""ALL" faith changing sexuality is "post rationalization".  I personally don't believe "all" phenomena ever have the "same interpretation" when it comes to the way humans work.  

And yes, I know a little about bisexuality also and how paradigms have a way of changing.

On 10/29/2016 at 11:53 AM, mfbukowski said:

In the '60's those of us in the counter-culture took it as a paradigm that everyone was bisexual with either a little more hetero side or a little more homo side.  How anyone decided to behave was up to them- "do your own thing".  That means everyone was free to cultivate your preferences, and on the other hand, everyone was free to decide if a particular behavior was right or wrong and act accordingly.

So on one hand, this attitude can be seen as an "anti-LDS paradigm" or a "pro-LDS/free agency" paradigm.  We are free to choose our behaviors and bear the consequences either way.

Now we have gone backwards into a "born this way" paradigm.

Odd that a 60's counter-culture view would now be seen as "conservative", and it's amazing how much we have moved backwards toward determinism.

We used to believe we could actually create our lives to be the way we wanted them to be.  Now?  Everything is someone else's fault.

Interesting direction.  I don't like the notion of projecting that forward as a trend, but it is what it is.

We are going backwards toward "1984" having learned nothing.  Odd because IN 1984, we thought we were beyond that.

Sad stuff.

If you live long enough you will learn that for every cultural change there is a cultural reaction and counter-move.

Human "nature" always wins and the pendulum always swings, pun intended.

 

Edited November 1, 2016 by mfbukowski

[Gray]

17 hours ago, Calm said:

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.

I wouldn't describe either behavior as apostasy, no. Sins according the current interpretations and teachings? Yes. 

Even with polygamy, the church has not rejected polygamy, it has just not authorized its practice in life. So I don't see how practicing polygamy could be apostasy. The church is embarrassed by the polygamists, though (IMO), and this strange idea of conflating behavior with apostasy started as a way to distance ourselves from the polygamous groups. 

And of course when it comes to gay marriage we have no official revelation on the topic, so throwing around the A word seems really premature. 

 

17 hours ago, Calm said:

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.

There has been no real clarification. We've just been told it's okay to advocate for gay marriage on social media with no consequences. I fail to see how gay marriage could be apostasy but advocating for gay marriage would not be. If anything it would be the reverse of that. 

[Gray]

16 hours ago, Bill "Papa" Lee said:

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. 

Only since last November has gay marriage been classified as apostasy. 

[Gray]

16 hours ago, Maestrophil said:

CFR

The handbook officially defines gay couples as apostates. Nowhere does the manual define adulterers as apostates. 

Edited November 1, 2016 by Gray

[Gray]

10 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

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. 

The sin here is in labeling gay couples as apostates who are not worthy of heaven. 

Edited November 1, 2016 by Gray

[Gray]

9 hours ago, Calm said:

Couldn't one say the same thing viewing from the outside men and women apparently happy in heterosexual relationships only to later identify as gay?  Is it appropriate to inform them that they must be bisexual no matter how they self identify?  And any later claim that they weren't happy after all is only post rationalization?

It's tricky to say, because the way people self identify doesn't always match up to what they're attracted to. Arousal can be measured in a lab, but self identity cannot. 

[Maestrophil]

10 minutes ago, Gray said:

The handbook officially defines gay couples as apostates. Nowhere does the manual define adulterers as apostates. 

I have not seen the direct reference calling them apostates... however, the definition of apostate is "a person who renounces a religious or political belief or principle."  So in reality, a unrepentant adulterer, who announces their intent to continue such behavior IS, in fact, renouncing a religious belief/principle and is by definition, an apostate.  Any person who willfully declares themselves in opposition to the churches definition of gospel principles is in apostasy.

[Gray]

4 minutes ago, Maestrophil said:

I have not seen the direct reference calling them apostates... however, the definition of apostate is "a person who renounces a religious or political belief or principle."  So in reality, a unrepentant adulterer, who announces their intent to continue such behavior IS, in fact, renouncing a religious belief/principle and is by definition, an apostate.  Any person who willfully declares themselves in opposition to the churches definition of gospel principles is in apostasy.

Again, not according to the handbook. According to your personal interpretation, sure. 

Edited November 1, 2016 by Gray

[Maestrophil]

4 minutes ago, Gray said:

Again, not according to the handbook. According to your personal interpretation, sure. 

According to the english language. So your beef here is the word being listed only in this instance.  Would it make you feel better if the church added a line in the handbook that said "Married gay couples are in apostasy as are all who are in active opposition to church principles"?

Seems a little nitpick and obvious to me, but, I guess problems are always there to find if you are looking...

 

Just curious.

[Gray]

2 minutes ago, Maestrophil said:

According to the english language. So your beef here is the word being listed only in this instance.  Would it make you feel better if the church added a line in the handbook that said "Married gay couples are in apostasy as are all who are in active opposition to church principles"?

Seems a little nitpick and obvious to me, but, I guess problems are always there to find if you are looking...

 

Just curious.

Sure, then we'd have to redefine all sin as apostasy. All sin is committed willfully, is it not? Therefore every time we talk disrespectfully to someone, we are in apostasy. That rather dilutes the actual meaning of the word apostasy, which has nothing to do with actions, but at least it would be internally consistent. 

[california boy]

7 minutes ago, Maestrophil said:

According to the english language. So your beef here is the word being listed only in this instance.  Would it make you feel better if the church added a line in the handbook that said "Married gay couples are in apostasy as are all who are in active opposition to church principles"?

Seems a little nitpick and obvious to me, but, I guess problems are always there to find if you are looking...

 

Just curious.

If the church is going to specifically call out gay marriage and officially label them apostates, then yes the church should specifically call out every other sin that they feel qualifies the person to be an apostate and so label them.  Why would they not do this other than just sheer aggression directed at gay couples.  

[Maestrophil]

2 minutes ago, Gray said:

Sure, then we'd have to redefine all sin as apostasy. All sin is committed willfully, is it not? Therefore every time we talk disrespectfully to someone, we are in apostasy. That rather dilutes the actual meaning of the word apostasy, which has nothing to do with actions, but at least it would be internally consistent. 

Not true.  A stated choice to continue in sinful behavior IS apostasy by definition.  A couple of gay people trying to refrain from all sexual intimacy, yet succumbing in a moment of weakness, would not be called apostates if they came to the bishop.  I know from the experience of close gay friends that they would be helped to regain worthiness to partake of the sacrament just as a heater couple who 'slipped' would.  But declaring ones intentions to NEVER keep the commandments - which is what you are doing when you enter into a gay marriage, is open defiance and thus, apostasy.  

Also, do you have a copy of Handbook one that is newer than 2010?  I don't.  SO I have no firm evidence of what is in it.  But I do have access to the 2010 version, and apostate is only mentioned once when referring to members who have family affiliated with apostate groups and nowhere else at all...  FWIW

[Maestrophil]

36 minutes ago, california boy said:

If the church is going to specifically call out gay marriage and officially label them apostates, then yes the church should specifically call out every other sin that they feel qualifies the person to be an apostate and so label them.  Why would they not do this other than just sheer aggression directed at gay couples.  

Again, I Feel the thing not being admitted or understood by many people with your position, is that gay marriage is not a single act of sin, it is choosing to live permanently in opposition to church principles by it's very nature. Using adultery as an example - If someone were to go to their bishop and state "I believe the church is wrong in preaching monogamy...  I can be married to a woman I love, and still have sex with as many women as I want.  In fact, that is what I intend to openly do.  I will tell my children, I will proudly tell anyone who will listen that this is OK"  That person would not last long in the church and would be an apostate.  Unfortunately, there is not a single actions such as marriage, that can declare all this in an instant, as gay marriage does.

[Gray]

22 minutes ago, Maestrophil said:

Not true.  A stated choice to continue in sinful behavior IS apostasy by definition.  A couple of gay people trying to refrain from all sexual intimacy, yet succumbing in a moment of weakness, would not be called apostates if they came to the bishop.  I know from the experience of close gay friends that they would be helped to regain worthiness to partake of the sacrament just as a heater couple who 'slipped' would.  But declaring ones intentions to NEVER keep the commandments - which is what you are doing when you enter into a gay marriage, is open defiance and thus, apostasy.  

Also, do you have a copy of Handbook one that is newer than 2010?  I don't.  SO I have no firm evidence of what is in it.  But I do have access to the 2010 version, and apostate is only mentioned once when referring to members who have family affiliated with apostate groups and nowhere else at all...  FWIW

What I'm referencing is the update to the handbook that occurred in November, 2015:

 

http://www.sltrib.com/home/3144035-155/new-mormon-policy-would-make-apostates

You can see the relevant portions of the handbook in the link.

If apostasy is what you claim, then every member of the church is an apostate. Just by agreeing to be born we acknowledge that we will NEVER keep the commandments perfectly. 

On the other hand, it is perfectly plausible that a gay Mormon couple might get married even under the belief that getting married was sinful, but preferring to live in sin than to live without each other. There is no version of "apostasy" in the English language that applies there, but apparently the writers of the church handbooks have been using non-standard English here. 

 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

Only since last November has gay marriage been classified as apostasy. 

Have you ever read the "Proclamation on the Family", this issue has been a matter of Church Doctrine for a long time. 

 

[Gray]

15 minutes ago, Bill "Papa" Lee said:

Have you ever read the "Proclamation on the Family", this issue has been a matter of Church Doctrine for a long time. 

 

The proclamation on the family does not classify gay, married couples as apostates. 

[Maestrophil]

28 minutes ago, Gray said:

What I'm referencing is the update to the handbook that occurred in November, 2015:

 

http://www.sltrib.com/home/3144035-155/new-mormon-policy-would-make-apostates

You can see the relevant portions of the handbook in the link.

If apostasy is what you claim, then every member of the church is an apostate. Just by agreeing to be born we acknowledge that we will NEVER keep the commandments perfectly. 

On the other hand, it is perfectly plausible that a gay Mormon couple might get married even under the belief that getting married was sinful, but preferring to live in sin than to live without each other. There is no version of "apostasy" in the English language that applies there, but apparently the writers of the church handbooks have been using non-standard English here. 

 

Has this Handbook indeed been distributed and is it in use by leaders currently?  Just curious.

Your statement of my definition of apostasy is WAY off.  Of course we will never live the commandments perfectly - but, as the sacrament emphasizes, are we WILLING to?  A sinner who hates sinning and is willing to keep the commandments but fails from time to time, and repents when they fail, is a far cry from someone who openly states an unwillingness to comply.

A gay couple who marries - even if it because they love each other tremendously and can't live without a sexually active marriage - are still unwilling to surrender what THEY want to follow God (or at least the churches definition of what God wants).  That is apostasy clear and simple according to any definition.  

Now if you don't believe God wants it that way, and that the church does not speak for God - then that is understandable and fine.  But you can't logically expect the church to feel the same.

[Gray]

49 minutes ago, Maestrophil said:

Has this Handbook indeed been distributed and is it in use by leaders currently?  Just curious.

Yes indeed

49 minutes ago, Maestrophil said:

Your statement of my definition of apostasy is WAY off.  Of course we will never live the commandments perfectly - but, as the sacrament emphasizes, are we WILLING to?  A sinner who hates sinning and is willing to keep the commandments but fails from time to time, and repents when they fail, is a far cry from someone who openly states an unwillingness to comply.

Nope, that's not what apostasy means. You can have every intent of breaking every commandment in the book. That alone does not make you an apostate. Remember:

Apostasy = the abandonment or renunciation of a religious or political belief.

 

49 minutes ago, Maestrophil said:

A gay couple who marries - even if it because they love each other tremendously and can't live without a sexually active marriage - are still unwilling to surrender what THEY want to follow God (or at least the churches definition of what God wants).  That is apostasy clear and simple according to any definition.  

Now if you don't believe God wants it that way, and that the church does not speak for God - then that is understandable and fine.  But you can't logically expect the church to feel the same.

That's not what apostasy means. What you're talking about is sin. 

[Maestrophil]

12 minutes ago, Gray said:

Yes indeed

Nope, that's not what apostasy means. You can have every intent of breaking every commandment in the book. That alone does not make you an apostate. Remember:

Apostasy = the abandonment or renunciation of a religious or political belief.

 

That's not what apostasy means. What you're talking about is sin. 

Exactly what it means - abandoning a willingness to obey Christ is abandoning THE MAJOR foundational principle of the church.  That is Apostasy.  Choosing to marry as a gay couple is open prolonged rebellion against the church.

 

Edited to add - I understand if you think Christ is OK with gay marriage and that the church is wrong, but that is a different discussion than we are having here.

Edited November 1, 2016 by Maestrophil

[Gray]

19 minutes ago, Maestrophil said:

Exactly what it means - abandoning a willingness to obey Christ is abandoning THE MAJOR foundational principle of the church.  That is Apostasy.  Choosing to marry as a gay couple is open prolonged rebellion against the church.

 

Edited to add - I understand if you think Christ is OK with gay marriage and that the church is wrong, but that is a different discussion than we are having here.

I know this sounds a bit flippant, but your argument is not with me, but with the English language. Sin and apostasy are not synonyms. The church has muddied the waters here. 

[Maestrophil]

3 minutes ago, Gray said:

I know this sounds a bit flippant, but your argument is not with me, but with the English language. Sin and apostasy are not synonyms. The church has muddied the waters here. 

I'll stop responding, simply because we seem to be talking past each other.  Your response isn't flippant or offensive, but it ignores that I feel I stated that choosing to get married as a gay couple is MORE than sin. It is willful rejection/abandonment of church principles and that, by the English definition = Apostasy.  Apostasy = the abandonment or renunciation of a religious or political belief.

 

Edit - Not only the chastity issue, but the fact that the church strictly defines marriage as between members of the opposite sex only as a principle - if you abandon this principle is that not apostasy?

Edited November 1, 2016 by Maestrophil
Clarification

[djf1981]

I grew up in a strong Mormon family and was shown a lot of love by both parents, and yet I knew I was attracted to men even before I knew what s.e.x. was. In fact my first crush occurred when i was in the first grade. There may be some "outside" environmental factors that have a part in shaping a person's sexual identity. But speaking for myself, none of that really matters at the end of the day. What matters to me is that this is all I've ever known for literally as long as i can remember and I don't see the situation changing. Ever.

[canard78]

17 hours ago, Calm said:

Couldn't one say the same thing viewing from the outside men and women apparently happy in heterosexual relationships only to later identify as gay?  Is it appropriate to inform them that they must be bisexual no matter how they self identify?  And any later claim that they weren't happy after all is only post rationalization?

Yes you're right it could be. 

Having said that there's far more societal pressure in that direction. To choose to be in a straight relationship while accepting your gay orientation is more like to happen than someone who is gay being in a gay relationship and then later switching back to a straight one... unless, of course, they are bisexual. 

[BlueDreams]

On 10/30/2016 at 4:36 PM, RevTestament said:

"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.

Sorry, I've been busy. But I was talking about marriage. And I'm also talking about continuing relationships that are forced or contrived for the hopes of social acceptability. With a decision like this, I would assume that the more organic and personally decided as opposed to socially pressured, the better. I'm no expert and I've only met a handful of people who experience SSA to some degree and are dating the opposite gender. But I would rather this be viewed as choice v expectation. And in a culture centered around marriage, it is easy to slip into expectation mode. 

 

With luv, 

BD 

NOTICE: We have enough threads open on this topic. Thread closed.